date:20190916



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

 

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, 
>> people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its 
>> justification among true believers.*
>>
>
> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically 
> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just 
> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in 
> ways that humans find odd.
>

Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too 
far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after 
the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no 
collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from 
which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG 

>  
>
>> *> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement? 
>> Nothing.*
>>
>
> True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to the Schrödinger 
> wave of the universe described by his equation, it just keeps on going 
> forever.
>

MW says that and a hellofalot MORE! I gave you a hugely simpler solution. 
Why don't you take it and go in peace? AG

>  
>
>> > Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer 
>> applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a bookkeeping 
>> device to get rid of it!
>>
>
> True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it explained 
> observations better but because some people didn't like those many worlds, 
> so they just said some mysterious process makes them disappear even though 
> they can't clearly explain how this process does this or explain exactly 
> what circumstances are needed for it to take effect. In Sean Carroll's new 
> book, which I just started reading, he says Many Worlds could be called 
> Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation 
> because nothing more is needed to explain observations.  Hugh Everett 
> didn't add any new physics, when he came up with Many Worlds, he just 
> followed the Schrödinger Equation as far as it would go and junked a lot of 
> useless gunk (like the collapse hypothesis) that did nothing except make 
> people who were squeamish about the idea there was more than one version of 
> them more comfortable.  
>
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccf2172a-2261-485d-a736-90fc3540a276%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 11:13:37 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:42:18PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:20:57 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously 
> posted, an 
> > > uncountable infinity of universes is possible without any repeats. 
> AG  
> > > 
> > 
> > Incorrect. Each world has a finite amount of information that 
> defines 
> > it, and consequently nonzero measure. If these worlds are drawn from 
> > an uncountable infinite set, then there must be an uncountable 
> number 
> > of copies of each world. 
> > 
> > 
> > This argument breaks down if worlds are infinite. To prove any of this,  
> > we need to do some real mathematics. So far I see it as conjectural. AG  
> > 
>
> I just don't see how it could be possible for a world to contain an 
> infinite amount of information. But as people have noted here, the 
> word "world" is ambiguous. 
>
> By "world" I first mean our universe, our bubble, including the
unobservable region, and which cosmologists are in general
agreement that it's infinite in spatial extent.; hence infinite
information. Personally, I think it's finite, a huge hypersphere
which is measured almost flat due its size. AG
 

>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/53574b3c-7ba0-4585-9b1f-74666efe5f2a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:41 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> Yeah, but despite Chopra there was Linde is seems to be a reliable.
> physicist. Also, the dismissive crap performed by number crunchers, dismiss
> it because it merely offends their sense of...conventionality. Outside of
> Bruno, and Young, Standish, nobody else here is employed as an academician
> is there?
>

When I was employed (which was some time ago) I was certainly an academic.
Besides, it is not who you are, or what your current employment is, that
counts. It is whether you talk sense or nonsense.  Linde is not the only
professor of physics to go out onto speculative limbs from time to time.
Carroll seems to have fallen into the popularity trap of trying to make the
physics more sensational than it actually is.

Bruce

Sagan, who gets quoted here, offered woo, in Cosmos, and basically. 40
> years later what do we know of the universe (currently) save that is a
> great, expanse of gas, dust, bereft of other civilizations, that we can
> never, in principle ever reach via probes. I, for one, look for some sort
> of commercial...intellectual..technological...somehow, some way..ROI. We
> need a pay out, in some fashion.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTSzFZ-94%3DqKT1hAsv2efT0%2Bx1p8jto9F2xZG8HR9zrMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

2019-09-16 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:42:18PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:20:57 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote:
> >
> > Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously posted, an
> > uncountable infinity of universes is possible without any repeats. AG 
> >
> 
> Incorrect. Each world has a finite amount of information that defines
> it, and consequently nonzero measure. If these worlds are drawn from
> an uncountable infinite set, then there must be an uncountable number
> of copies of each world.
> 
> 
> This argument breaks down if worlds are infinite. To prove any of this, 
> we need to do some real mathematics. So far I see it as conjectural. AG 
>

I just don't see how it could be possible for a world to contain an
infinite amount of information. But as people have noted here, the
word "world" is ambiguous.



-- 


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190917051323.GF5030%40zen.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


Yeah, but despite Chopra there was Linde is seems to be a reliable. physicist. 
Also, the dismissive crap performed by number crunchers, dismiss it because it 
merely offends their sense of...conventionality. Outside of  Bruno, and Young, 
Standish, nobody else here is employed as an academician is there? Sagan, who 
gets quoted here, offered woo, in Cosmos, and basically. 40 years later what do 
we know of the universe (currently) save that is a great, expanse of gas, dust, 
bereft of other civilizations, that we can never, in principle ever reach via 
probes. I, for one, look for some sort of 
commercial...intellectual..technological...somehow, some way..ROI. We need a 
pay out, in some fashion. 

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 10:23 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some 
theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it 
out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' 
stuff works for me. 


As soon as the article mentioned Deepak Chopra I knew that we were deep into 
woo-woo territory
Bruce 
From: Bruce Kellett 

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making 
a hyper-smart machine is impossible?

No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian dualist 
-- mind-brain identity is the thing.
Bruce 
 Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 


From: Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce


Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then see 
if the world conforms to its predictions..
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSR8NfcwfJ%2B%2BGxVWvg76%3Dy1%3DLq4pSkU_wn9CtD3XcV59A%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/313961629.8410799.1568695261396%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/16/2019 7:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:41:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 9/16/2019 6:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers,
> because it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to do. I
> suppose it could be told to do bad things, and if it has inherent
> defenses, it can't be stopped, like Gort in The Day the Earth Stood
> Still. AG

The danger is not so much in AI being told to do bad things, but
that in
doing the good things it was told to do it uses unforseen methods
that
have disasterous consequences.  It's like Henry Ford was told to
invent
fast, convenient personal transportation...and created traffic
jams and
global warming.

Brent

One could expect military applications, such as robots replacing human
infantry, their job to kill the enemy. So if their programming had a 
flaw,
accidental or intentional, these AI infantry could start killing 
indiscriminately.

 Less likely than with human troops who have built in emotions of 
revenge and retaliation.

It would be hard to stop them since they'd come with self defense 
functions. AG

But we also know a lot more about their internal construction and 
functions.  We would probably even build in an Achilles heel.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb65eb0e-bd08-fc2a-2a48-b4b1e11b86a0%40verizon.net.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:41:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/16/2019 6:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers, 
> > because it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to do. I 
> > suppose it could be told to do bad things, and if it has inherent 
> > defenses, it can't be stopped, like Gort in The Day the Earth Stood 
> > Still. AG 
>
> The danger is not so much in AI being told to do bad things, but that in 
> doing the good things it was told to do it uses unforseen methods that 
> have disasterous consequences.  It's like Henry Ford was told to invent 
> fast, convenient personal transportation...and created traffic jams and 
> global warming. 
>
> Brent 
>

One could expect military applications, such as robots replacing human
infantry, their job to kill the enemy. So if their programming had a flaw, 
accidental or intentional, these AI infantry could start killing 
indiscriminately.
It would be hard to stop them since they'd come with self defense 
functions. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9be4c774-7a02-47bb-9344-d42daf7d30b5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:20:57 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > 
> > Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously posted, an 
> > uncountable infinity of universes is possible without any repeats. AG  
> > 
>
> Incorrect. Each world has a finite amount of information that defines 
> it, and consequently nonzero measure. If these worlds are drawn from 
> an uncountable infinite set, then there must be an uncountable number 
> of copies of each world. 
>

This argument breaks down if worlds are infinite. To prove any of this, 
we need to do some real mathematics. So far I see it as conjectural. AG 

>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fbfd2887-1085-459b-a003-c72fb7c61715%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article,
> some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter.
> Check it out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while,
> the 'lofty' stuff works for me.
>

As soon as the article mentioned Deepak Chopra I knew that we were deep
into woo-woo territory

Bruce


> From: Bruce Kellett 
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic
> bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine
> intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that
> making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?
>
>
> No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian
> dualist -- mind-brain identity is the thing.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance?
> :-)
>
>
> From: Bruce Kellett 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be
> good with you, because, non-human?
>
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>
>
> Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then
> see if the world conforms to its predictions..
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSR8NfcwfJ%2B%2BGxVWvg76%3Dy1%3DLq4pSkU_wn9CtD3XcV59A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some 
theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it 
out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' 
stuff works for me. 


-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making 
a hyper-smart machine is impossible?

No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian dualist 
-- mind-brain identity is the thing.
Bruce 
 Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 


From: Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce


Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then see 
if the world conforms to its predictions..
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSFN0Q-cN45XKRnND8QynV7Kjbpgyz9jNdJgUSJy2NeKA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1033308852.8315517.1568686751450%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Speaking of the observable being just a sliver, I wonder if this article is 
worth consideration? It's a consciousness thing, which seems to be in 
opposition to matter, if I read correctly? There are a few other physicists for 
the worthies here, to defame, so it might be a bit of fun?
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/09/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-weekend-feature/


-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce



-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 8:11 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:


> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure 
> of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility 
that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said  
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".
 Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSUoS-nCn4bvavNep6mHNYmeUq_0%2BGMyQQF%2BPxuV8KTBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1958873613.8197096.156888820%40mail.yahoo.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1060122003.8357377.1568686298817%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

2019-09-16 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously posted, an
> uncountable infinity of universes is possible without any repeats. AG 
> 

Incorrect. Each world has a finite amount of information that defines
it, and consequently nonzero measure. If these worlds are drawn from
an uncountable infinite set, then there must be an uncountable number
of copies of each world.


-- 


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190917010724.GD5030%40zen.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic
> bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine
> intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that
> making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?
>

No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian
dualist -- mind-brain identity is the thing.

Bruce


> Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance?
> :-)
>
>
> From: Bruce Kellett 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be
> good with you, because, non-human?
>
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>
>
> Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then
> see if the world conforms to its predictions..
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSFN0Q-cN45XKRnND8QynV7Kjbpgyz9jNdJgUSJy2NeKA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making 
a hyper-smart machine is impossible? Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian 
dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce

Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then see 
if the world conforms to its predictions..
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQJYjJKFxRMHb57F_TQMYHxK%2BhsMWfR-Sr_DpU08xTsBg%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2077664134.8276696.1568680781004%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/16/2019 2:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:

/> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM
*and* Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd
result finds its justification among true believers./

And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results,
just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't
behave in ways that humans find odd.

/> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the
measurement? Nothing./

True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to
the Schrödinger wave of the universe described by his equation, it
just keeps on going forever.

> Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer
applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a
bookkeeping device to get rid of it!

True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it
explained observations better but because some people didn't like
those many worlds, so they just said some mysterious process makes
them disappear even though they can't clearly explain how this process
does this or explain exactly what circumstances are needed for it to
take effect. In Sean Carroll's new book, which I just started reading,
he says Many Worlds could be called Austere Quantum Mechanics because
it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation because nothing more is
needed to explain observations.

You still need the Born rule, including its intepretation as a probability.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3cbade59-7999-b318-aeeb-4e9ca4770bce%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be
> good with you, because, non-human?
>
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>
>
Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then
see if the world conforms to its predictions..

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQJYjJKFxRMHb57F_TQMYHxK%2BhsMWfR-Sr_DpU08xTsBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your
> age is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very
> soon, relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their
> birthday.
>
> Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name your age. After
> that, you have always the same age.
>
>
> Nice aphorisms.  But irrelevant.  The question is why don't we see almost
> everyone else as younger?
>
>
> That happens when we are not old enough, but also, we might always
> backtrack to younger people when close to death or when dying, …
>

What utter nonsense. You cannot jump between Everett branches, so you
cannot jump to a branch in which you were young. Physics rules out backward
causation and branch jumping.


> … may be up to something like this video below, which is an
> oversimplifying view (mixing G and G* all the time) of Neoplatonism, or
> theology close to Mechanism:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI
>
> You can get very old, and always believed that you are young, even a baby,
> and be right on that, just by not memorising everything.
>

Losing you mind when you are very old is quite common, but that does not
mean that you become young again.

Bruce


Technological immortality is a sort of egotic complacency in the Samsara,
> and a sort of Procrastination of Nirvana. But why not? There is something
> to contemplate here, but here is only an aspect of a bigger and simpler
> reality. And there is something to contemplate there too. With Mechanism,
> mathematics can give a glimpse, and evacuate some fake certainties. Nature
> also used some authoritative argument sometimes...
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSy%3DtB8XgPieA0bEfyRX%3Dz1aXvYyWUp1e_DdhMWmQ0p-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity,
> people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its
> justification among true believers.*
>

And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just
odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in
ways that humans find odd.

> *> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement?
> Nothing.*
>

True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to the Schrödinger wave
of the universe described by his equation, it just keeps on going forever.

> > Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer applicable.
> That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a bookkeeping device to get
> rid of it!
>

True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it explained
observations better but because some people didn't like those many worlds,
so they just said some mysterious process makes them disappear even though
they can't clearly explain how this process does this or explain exactly
what circumstances are needed for it to take effect. In Sean Carroll's new
book, which I just started reading, he says Many Worlds could be called
Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation
because nothing more is needed to explain observations.  Hugh Everett
didn't add any new physics, when he came up with Many Worlds, he just
followed the Schrödinger Equation as far as it would go and junked a lot of
useless gunk (like the collapse hypothesis) that did nothing except make
people who were squeamish about the idea there was more than one version of
them more comfortable.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1B0b%3DYdeY0%2BQVZvopEqtAa44D40AE%2BScMLhzCOP4brtg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

Yes, Bruno, it's all axiomatic. Having said this, we can do away with MWI by 
simply calling it all, an infinite (my term is near-infinite, a non sequitur), 
and we still hypothetically receive the same results as chaotic inflation, or 
the happy Hugh Everett, dance of worlds. From trans-cosmic invaders from 
alternate Earths, I'd hope it would be from 3 different cosms where other human 
species were successful. Dance with Denisovans, battle with Neanderthals, do 
mathematics with Boskones (they gota be good at math with those big heads?). We 
leave one discussion out of our thoughts. Which is how many of these oblate 
spheroids that we split off to, are just empty vacuums, or false vacuums? Thus, 
it's the internal content of any given cosmos that matters. No minds (to me) 
equals non-consciousness, and that Swiss guy, Schrodinger seems to agree with 
me. I'll just jot off and submit this to the committee and await my Fields 
Prize. 


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On 16 Sep 2019, at 02:46, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
My guess is among the physics community, most, would be mildly, skeptical of 
MWI, because it's a bridge too far to get evidence of, as yet and thus, 
unconcerned. 


Hmm… I will criticise this on two levels.
1) there are evidence: Nature loves to multiply things, and each time we said 
that we know what our universe is, we get later that it was multiple. We have 
believe that Earth was the world, then that the solar system was the world, 
then that the galaxy was the world, then thanks to Hubble the guy, we 
eventually accept what Kant did suggest, that our galaxies are themselves 
multiple, and now we see them like little bacteria engulfed in filaments made 
of a mysterious matter, along with an observable matter no less mysterious as 
it implies a still bigger multiplication. 

2) Occam Razor. If you can explain everything with the axiom A and without the 
axiom B, get rid of axiom B, especially if it put some mess in your theory.The 
theory 
Mechanism + SWE 
is simply much more conceptually simple than the theory 
SWE + an ontological physical collapse of on ontological physical wave (without 
mentioning the dualism in the implicit theory of mind).
Only one problem, for Mechanism to work, and notably to get the qualia 
extending the quanta (like G* extend G, or Z1* extends Z1), we need to re-prove 
constructively that Mechanism -> SWE, but there are promising result (I dare to 
say) in that direction.
Yes, the less axioms you have, the more possibilities/models you get, and with 
mechanism, there is a simple explanation why the possibilities have to 
interfere at some point. 
The most plausible theory is Mechanism. You need only to believe in 2+2=4 & Co. 
The appearance of the many worlds and they laws is explained from that, and in 
a precise way so that it can be tested, and thanks to QM, it works, and it 
explains the relation between qualia and quanta, consciousness and matter, etc. 
Maybe wrongly, but that has to be shown.
There are zero universe, also. So we get the conceptual Occam (smaller theory) 
and the ontological Occam, no physical universe at all, but a universal dreamer 
(the universal machine lost in an incredible web of dreams, some coherent up to 
make it able to say “hello” to itself, and develop infinite conversations, like 
bacteria ...






Having said this, many cosmologists are still having a cat fight about the 
Hubble Constant (The rate of cosmological expansion). my suspicion is, that 
once we get to the point of hanging truly gigantic telescopes on the periphery 
of the solar system, new discoveries will be made, and revisions to old laws of 
physics will be done. We'll gain a few definitive answers through observation, 
and we shall see that quantum in action at a vastly large scale. Relatedly, 
hey!, where's my dark matter? in fact, hey!, where's my fusion reactors. Ah! So 
much for the 'mentally fit' physicists and astronomers….



Nothing is simple. Not even Nothing.
Bruno







-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:46:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:34:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

 

Sean Carroll's many-selves

And the good news is ... the one in this world is going bald. AG 


And (many would say) going crazy.
There is obviously (in his view) a world where a Sean Carroll is a "one world" 
quantum theorist. 

@philipthrift





https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zsXCwUsuvKo


@philipthrift
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
https://www.wired.com/story/ sean-carroll-thinks-we-all- 
exist-on-multiple-worlds/



-- 
You received this message because you are subscrib

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/16/2019 6:22 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:

> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here)
demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy,
or both.


And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the
possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not
like. As Carl Sagan said  "/The universe is not required to be in
perfect harmony with human ambition/".

 John K Clark


When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM 
*and* Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd 
result finds its justification among true believers. So what happened 
to the (non-covariant)


You need to read this: 
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/08/15/you-should-love-or-at-least-respect-the-schrodinger-equation/


Brent

wf after the measurement? Nothing. Like a horserace when it reaches 
conclusion, it's no longer applicable. That simple! The collapse 
hypothesis is just a bookkeeping device to get rid of it! 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/31aa3956-a0be-af5e-2959-905ef54eb62e%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Oh My! I'll simply have to delete my un-read download of Carroll's book because 
Woit disapproves!!!  

-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 9:28 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure 
> of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility 
that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said  
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".
 Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11277

An Apology
Posted on September 15, 2019 by woitI’m afraid I made a serious mistake in this 
previous posting discussing Sean Carroll’s new book. Since the book was 
relatively reasonable, while the jacket and promotional material that came with 
it were nonsense, I assumed that Carroll was just being ill-served by his 
publisher. It’s now clear I was very wrong. He’s on a book tour, and the 
nonsense is exactly what he is putting front and center as a revelation to the 
public about how to understand quantum mechanics. For a couple examples, here’s 
what was on the PBS News Hour
The “many worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every decision 
you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a 
new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll 
discusses the concept and his new book, “Something Deeply Hidden,” with 
NewsHour Weekend’s Tom Casciato.
and here’s something from his talk down the street from me.Using your public 
platform to tell people that the way to understand quantum mechanics is that 
the world splits depending on what you decide to do is simply What the Bleep? 
level stupidity. Those in the physics and science communication communities who 
care about the public understanding of quantum mechanics should think hard 
about what they can do to deal with this situation. They may however come to 
the same conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll try to do 
from now on.@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc4c393e-7f4c-4146-979a-7e5874f3b4e0%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1412328540.8234477.1568667003003%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 8:11 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure 
> of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility 
that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said  
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".
 Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSUoS-nCn4bvavNep6mHNYmeUq_0%2BGMyQQF%2BPxuV8KTBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1958873613.8197096.156888820%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 9/16/2019 6:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers, 
because it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to do. I 
suppose it could be told to do bad things, and if it has inherent 
defenses, it can't be stopped, like Gort in The Day the Earth Stood 
Still. AG 


The danger is not so much in AI being told to do bad things, but that in 
doing the good things it was told to do it uses unforseen methods that 
have disasterous consequences.  It's like Henry Ford was told to invent 
fast, convenient personal transportation...and created traffic jams and 
global warming.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a7a66ac7-bf3d-aff4-1483-ab30c11ebfaa%40verizon.net.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 9/16/2019 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As I said I my other post, it is just Descartes’ idea that our body 
obeys laws which are locally computable, made precise by using Turing 
mathematical definition of computability. It is the hypothesis that 
there no magic happening in the brain, somehow. Or that the brain is 
Digitally emulable *at some description level* relevant for staying 
alive and well.


But then you conclude that physical objects, like brains, are not Turing 
computable...and thus arrive at contradiction to your starting hypothesis.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fcd6ef29-903d-5b90-151c-600813aa0252%40verizon.net.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/16/2019 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Sep 2019, at 06:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 9/15/2019 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Why would it even have a simple goal like "survive”?

It is a short code which makes the organism better for eating and avoiding
being eaten.

An organism needs to eat and avoid being eaten because that what
evolution selects. AIs don't evolve by natural selection.

A monist who embed the subject in the object will not take the
difference between artificial and natural too much seriously, as that
difference is artificial, and thus natural for entities developing
super-ego.

Machines and AI does develop by natural/artificial selection, notably
through economical pressure. The computers need to “earn their life”,
by doing some work for us. It is only one loop more in the evolution
process. That is not new. Jacques Lafitte wrote a book in 1911
(published in 1930) where he argues that the development of machine is
a collateral development of humanity, and that this is the
continuation of evolution.

You are just muddling the point. Computers don't evolve by random
variation with descent and natural (or artificial selection). They
evolve to satisfy us. As such they do not need, and therefore won't
have, motives to eat or be eaten or to reproduce...unless we provide
them or we allow them to develop by random variation.

And to help yourself is saying no more that it will have some fundamental goal...otherwise
there's no distinction between "help" and "hurt”.

It helps to eat, it hurts to be eaten. It is the basic idea.

For "helps" and "hurts" what? Successful replication?

No. Happiness. The goal is happiness. We forget this because some
bandits have brainwashed us with the idea that happiness is a sin (to
steal our money).
The goal is happiness, serenity, contemplation, pleasure, joy, … and
recognising ourselves in as many others as possible. To find unity in
the many, and the many in unity.

Happiness is also rising above others and discovering new things they
don't know, conquering new realms. Many different things make people
happy, at least temporarily. So how do you know there is some
"fundamental goal". Darwinian evolution is a theory within which you
can prove that reproduction will be a fundamental goal of most
creatures. But that proof doesn't work for manufactured objects.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bb6bc396-42ca-4245-45a9-6a93bc4ad5de%40verizon.net.

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:34 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> > *that is your act of faith, and* [...]
>

That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph.

> >> Faster Than Light? Faster? The very concept of speed is meaningless in
> the context of pure numbers because speed is change in distance divided by
> time and we're talking about pure numbers that can't see distance and can't
> change and can't see time.
>
> >*I use the fact that the violation of Bell’s inequality might emerge
> from the arithmetical physics,*
>

Bell found his inequality by thinking deeply about things like the way
polarized electrons and photons behave as they travel through space and
time, and every one of those things are physical.

> *With mechanism* [...]
>

What does "mechanism" mean today in Brunospeak?

> >> The idea of locality depends on distance and if you only have numbers
>

>
> *> We much more than the numbers. We have the laws of addition and
> multiplication,*
>

No you don't! Without matter and the laws of physics you have no way to add
or subtract anything. And because of p-adic distance, which I don't think
you've ever heard of, you don't have one unique self consistent way to
measure the distance between numbers you have a infinite number of
different ones.  Like you and me and all children we were taught the
intuitive way to measure distance, but there are infinitely many other
ways. And there one reason and one reason only that the way we were taught
to measure things was far more intuitive than the others, *it's the way
distance works in the physical world *and p-adic distance is not.

p-adic distances between rational numbers is not intuitive

> >> how do you build a register or construct anything else from pure
> numbers? Assuming there is more than one pure number register in the
> multiverse how can the number 8 know which register to go into and kick out
> number 7 that is hiding inside?
>
> *> By following the instructions in the quadruplets.*
>

Who or what is following those instructions??  What gives the particular
ASCII sequence that makes up that quadruplet the Godlike ability to change
a integer? And how do you instruct the integer 7 to turn into the integer
8? And after you change it does that now mean 6+1 = 8? It sure can't equal
7 anymore because 7 no longer exists, you've changed it to 8.

> >>Time is an illusion in GR,
>

*BULLSHIT! *Time is no more an illusion in General Relativity than space
is, and the distance between 2 events in 4D space time is an invariant.

> *> In Aristotle theology* [...]
>

And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing intelagent
ever follows that.

*> Digital Mechanism is the idea that we can survive with a digital
> physical computer.*
>

But that definition is inconsistent with nearly every paragraph of yours
that starts with the words "With Mechanism", and there are a lot of such
paragraphs.

> *>>> By using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, you can store
> information in the exponent of a product of prime numbers. *It is the
> most standard way, used by Gödel in its 1931 paper.
>
> >> That's Godel numbering.
>
> *> Yes, that is the name of how to represent programs, formula and digital
> machines in arithmetic.*
>

I agree, and just as a representation of a cow can't give milk a
representation of a digital machine can't compute or *do* anything else,
that's why I didn't go to the Apple store and just take a picture of an
iMac, the picture is not a machine so I had to buy the actual machine.

>> Assign every digit, letter, punctuation mark, blank space, and
> mathematical symbol a unique number. To encode y1,y2,y3,y4,... which could
> be a number or a equation or a function or a algorithm or a poem or anything
> , do it this way with prime numbers in order.
> (2^y1)*(3^y2)*(5^y3)*(7^y4)*(11^y5)*(13^y6)...
> You can factor the number and get the original sequence y1,y2,y3,y4,...
> out of it; the first prime number 2 occurred Y1 times so whatever symbol
> you arbitrarily assigned for Y1 is the first character in the number or
> equation or function or algorithm or a poem or whatever. For example, if I
> assign 6 to the symbol "0" and 5 to the symbol "=" then the Godel number of
> the formula  "0=0" is (2^6)*(3^5)*(5^6) = 243,000,000.
>
Godel numbers are super useful because if you give me a infinitely long
> list of algorithms that you claim will allow you to get arbitrarily close
> to every number on the Real Number Line I can turn all your algorithms into
> numbers then I can use Cantor's diagonal argument to show you a Real number
> that is NOT paired up with one of the Godel numbers that represents one
> of your algorithms.  So some real numbers are not computable, in fact
> nearly all of them are not computable. They can not even be approximated as
> can be done for transcendental numbers like pi or e, so most Real numbers
> can not have a name.  This is all great stuff, but it all de

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/16/2019 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 09:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself.


Ok, but we clearly have some common ground. I can send you this 
message and you can read it.


Here's my simplistic / informal understanding of what is going on... 
Like you, I tend to believe that consciousness is more fundamental 
than physics, and I also agree that "human physics" is just an idea in 
consciousness.


I think this equivocates on "fundamental".  Consciousness is 
epistemically fundamental.  It's the basis of knowledge and specifically 
of the knowledge that is sharable (objective).  But based on that 
knowledge we have developed a theory of the world in which physics seems 
to be fundamental in the ontological sense. This theory implies that 
consciousness is a phenomenon emergent from certain complex processes, 
probably of the kind called computations.  There is a lot of empirical 
(sharable, objective) support for this, i.e. physical effects on the 
brain change the consciousness.


Brent


I think that we might diverge in that I also believe that science 
points to something real, as in, real phenomena with discernible 
patterns that you and me can agree with. My understanding is that you, 
me, everyone else are "windows" through which reality can be 
experienced. As far as I am concerned, first person experience is 
REALLY REAL(tm) and independent third person reality is a useful model 
with an unknown (perhaps unknowable) ontological status.


My point: why wouldn't an algorithm become such a "window" from which 
reality can be experienced? What's special about wet brains? This 
seems particularly obvious to me given that I have never even met you 
in person. You could be an algorithm running in silicon, as far as I 
am concerned.


Telmo.



On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:

You mean human consciousness or something bigger?



-Original Message-
From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic


The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in
consciousness.


-- 
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83cd060e-aad2-4f17-ad6a-be72abb4aa08%40googlegroups.com

.



--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc1035f-25f8-4d60-a5c1-53bf4ff04381%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3f4f7c65-f2e6-432d-a209-4dc5b46133d4%40www.fastmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5ef9f4d6-757f-be7d-311c-10e67159ee33%40verizon.net.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 11:31:26 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:31 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>>
>>
>> Jason; it turns out you were right about the consensus among 
>> cosmologists; that the universe is thought to be *flat*. But I am 
>> studying some videos which seem to suggest that a flat universe can be* 
>> finite* in spatial extent, maybe like a cyclinder without an edge. Try 
>> try this, and the two which follow:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM&feature=youtu.be
>>
>>
> That is interesting and it is a good reminder how how flexible math is to 
> representing various spaces and geometries.  Most cosmologists work under 
> the assumption that space is "simply connected", rather than doughnut 
> shaped or otherwise, in which case if space is simply connected, and flat, 
> then it ought to be infinite.
>
> There are also interesting things that can be done as far as compacting 
> space, so that a finite cylinder can represent an infinite space evolving 
> through time.  There are some good illustrations of this here:
>
> https://www.podevin.com/single-post/2019/01/24/Einsteins-Dream-of-a-Grand-Unified-Theory
>
> Also known as a "Poincare disk" 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model   
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareHyperbolicDisk.html
>
> Jason
>

Concerning a flat and spatially finite geometry, say shaped like a square, 
when you get to what appears an edge, how do you wind up emerging on the 
opposite appearing edge? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bfd2b9e9-9331-4d20-a550-8e2c5b512bb2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum immortality


> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/15/2019 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 If in H you are multiplied in W and M, but directly killed in M, you 
 survive in W with probability one. That is why we add p or <>t to []p to 
 transform the logic of belief ([]p) into a probability logic ([]p & <>t).
>>> Suppose you live a few seconds in M.  Do you then survive in W with 
>>> probability 0.5?
>> Assuming you do die in M, even after some years, the probability in H to be 
>> feeling the one in W will be one, assuming you never dies in W. But this 
>> assumes mortality, and some transitivity of the probability rules, so the  
>> question is very complex. The probability in H to be W or M, for a short 
>> time,  is one half, but the probability to be in the place where you stay 
>> for a long time, will be close to one in a sort of retrospective way. 
>> 
>> All this comes from a simple fact: absolute-death is not a first person 
>> experience. There is no entry in the first person diary which mention “I 
>> died today”.
>> 
>> The difficulty is that the first person renormalise the probabilities all 
>> the time, and that is why making them transitive leads to paradoxes.
> 
> I think what makes them paradoxical is that you jump around between 
> subjective probabilities of different persons beliefs.

It works because I take them all, in the relative computationalist way (which 
is amenable to the mathematics of the diverse form of self-reference).

It is the materialist which invokes special selector making them unique. A bit 
like those who invoke the wave packet reduction in QM.




> 
>> 
>> Let me try to illustrate. You are in H, just before the WM-duplication. You 
>> are told in advance that in W you will get a cup of tea, and then be killed. 
>> In W you get a cup of coffee, and not killed. 
> 
> Is that last W supposed to be "M”?

Right.

Bruno



> 
>> What is the probability (in H) that you will get a cup of tea. It is 1/2. 
>> But what is the probability, in H, that you will have a long lasting memory 
>> of having drink a cup of coffee after that experiments: It is 1. In fact, in 
>> Moscow, you could (although it is psychologically very difficult) still bet 
>> that “you” will have a memory of having doing coffee, and just an amnesia of 
>> M and its cup of tea. This also gives some sense that we survive more in our 
>> kids and in the value we transmit to them, than in bodies and personal first 
>> person happening. 
>> 
>> Now, that renormalisation process is not easy, a bit like in QFT, we get 
>> infinities which are hard to subtract. 
> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d673b090-1a42-fc42-4abc-68fc09633e9e%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/76E6853D-7661-4100-9136-24BF1E92DA26%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch >>> > wrote:
 On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 >>> > wrote:
 On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum 
 > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people 
 > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we 
 > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the 
 > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people 
 > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our 
 > branch if this scenario is true.

 My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older 
 than even the oldest people we know.

 That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if 
 QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal 
 lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr. 
 So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is 
 still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does 
 not imply QI.

 Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective 
 level it only decreases.

 As Bruno would say, "you confuse the 1p with the 1pp." I am talking about 
 my personal measure of the number of years I have lived. As I get older, 
 the number of years I have lived increases. If I live to 1000, I have 
 lived more years between 100 and 1000 than between 1 and 100. This is 
 arithmetic, after all.

 I see.  This reasoning works only under the assumption that finding 
 yourself in any particular year across your infinite lifespan is 
 equiprobable (i.e. you can ignore the effects of the number or measure of 
 the various yous in other branches).  This is what I thought you mean by 
 measure, in terms of how to calculate probabilities / weights of the 
 various branches.

 But this discussion has gone off the rails. It started as a discussion of 
 quantum immortality, and the arguments against this notion, even in MWI. 
 The arguments against QI that have been advanced are that life-threatening 
 events tend not to be binary or quantum, but rather we enter a period of 
 slow decline, due to illness or other factors. Consequently, there is no 
 reason for us to expect to be immortal, even in MWI.

 I don't see how that last sentence follows.  It is true MWI doesn't 
 guarantee we should expect to always survive in the same condition, but it 
 does guarantee we should survive in some form.
>>> 
>>> But what does "we" refer to. Are you saying Jason, with the memories he has 
>>> at this moment, will always have a successor in the future.   Or are you 
>>> saying there'll always be a Jason that shares my childhood memories or my 
>>> memories of last year when that lightning bolt just missed me.
>>> 

 The other argument is that if QI is true, then you would expect to be very 
 old.

 We only know we are very old if our memories accumulate without limit, but 
 MWI does not guarantee persistence of memory.  It also follows from this 
 that to know one is immortal (has lived an infinite number of years) 
 requires an infinitely large brain and memory capacity.
>>> 
>>> I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to know I'm 
>>> 80yrs old.  In fact I only need to remember my birthday.
>> 
>> 
>> And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your age 
>> is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very soon, 
>> relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their birthday. 
>> 
>> Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name your age. After 
>> that, you have always the same age.
> 
> Nice aphorisms.  But irrelevant.  The question is why don't we see almost 
> everyone else as younger?  

That happens when we are not old enough, but also, we might always backtrack to 
younger people when close to death or when dying, …

… may be up to something like this video below, which is an oversimplifying 
view (mixing G and G* all the time) of Neoplatonism, or

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

2019-09-16 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:31 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>
>
> Jason; it turns out you were right about the consensus among cosmologists;
> that the universe is thought to be *flat*. But I am studying some videos
> which seem to suggest that a flat universe can be* finite* in spatial
> extent, maybe like a cyclinder without an edge. Try try this, and the two
> which follow:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM&feature=youtu.be
>
>
That is interesting and it is a good reminder how how flexible math is to
representing various spaces and geometries.  Most cosmologists work under
the assumption that space is "simply connected", rather than doughnut
shaped or otherwise, in which case if space is simply connected, and flat,
then it ought to be infinite.

There are also interesting things that can be done as far as compacting
space, so that a finite cylinder can represent an infinite space evolving
through time.  There are some good illustrations of this here:
https://www.podevin.com/single-post/2019/01/24/Einsteins-Dream-of-a-Grand-Unified-Theory

Also known as a "Poincare disk"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareHyperbolicDisk.html

Jason

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhTZNp-9YxWbufHrUUOr6-QiOmopqyy-ix%3DWmjK%2BJzoLg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 02:46, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> My guess is among the physics community, most, would be mildly, skeptical of 
> MWI, because it's a bridge too far to get evidence of, as yet and thus, 
> unconcerned.

Hmm… I will criticise this on two levels.

1) there are evidence: Nature loves to multiply things, and each time we said 
that we know what our universe is, we get later that it was multiple. We have 
believe that Earth was the world, then that the solar system was the world, 
then that the galaxy was the world, then thanks to Hubble the guy, we 
eventually accept what Kant did suggest, that our galaxies are themselves 
multiple, and now we see them like little bacteria engulfed in filaments made 
of a mysterious matter, along with an observable matter no less mysterious as 
it implies a still bigger multiplication. 

2) Occam Razor. If you can explain everything with the axiom A and without the 
axiom B, get rid of axiom B, especially if it put some mess in your theory.
The theory 

Mechanism + SWE 

is simply much more conceptually simple than the theory 

SWE + an ontological physical collapse of on ontological physical wave (without 
mentioning the dualism in the implicit theory of mind).

Only one problem, for Mechanism to work, and notably to get the qualia 
extending the quanta (like G* extend G, or Z1* extends Z1), we need to re-prove 
constructively that Mechanism -> SWE, but there are promising result (I dare to 
say) in that direction.

Yes, the less axioms you have, the more possibilities/models you get, and with 
mechanism, there is a simple explanation why the possibilities have to 
interfere at some point. 

The most plausible theory is Mechanism. You need only to believe in 2+2=4 & Co. 
The appearance of the many worlds and they laws is explained from that, and in 
a precise way so that it can be tested, and thanks to QM, it works, and it 
explains the relation between qualia and quanta, consciousness and matter, etc. 
Maybe wrongly, but that has to be shown.

There are zero universe, also. So we get the conceptual Occam (smaller theory) 
and the ontological Occam, no physical universe at all, but a universal dreamer 
(the universal machine lost in an incredible web of dreams, some coherent up to 
make it able to say “hello” to itself, and develop infinite conversations, like 
bacteria ...

> Having said this, many cosmologists are still having a cat fight about the 
> Hubble Constant (The rate of cosmological expansion). my suspicion is, that 
> once we get to the point of hanging truly gigantic telescopes on the 
> periphery of the solar system, new discoveries will be made, and revisions to 
> old laws of physics will be done. We'll gain a few definitive answers through 
> observation, and we shall see that quantum in action at a vastly large scale. 
> Relatedly, hey!, where's my dark matter? in fact, hey!, where's my fusion 
> reactors. Ah! So much for the 'mentally fit' physicists and astronomers….

Nothing is simple. Not even Nothing.

Bruno

> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Thrift 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:03 pm
> Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:46:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:34:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Sean Carroll's many-selves
> 
> And the good news is ... the one in this world is going bald. AG 
> 
> 
> And (many would say) going crazy.
> 
> There is obviously (in his view) a world where a Sean Carroll is a "one 
> world" quantum theorist. 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zsXCwUsuvKo 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> https://www.wired.com/story/ sean-carroll-thinks-we-all- 
> exist-on-multiple-worlds/ 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b7a3a0d-b3e0-43ef-b886-c393eb35c9b0%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
> 
> -- 
> 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 vie

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)


> On 15 Sep 2019, at 21:02, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:05 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:06 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:46:27 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:36 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:25 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:24:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of running 
>> away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on how 
>> supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read their 
>> paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One advantage that 
>> MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of quantum frame 
>> dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be useful for 
>> working with quantum gravity,
>> 
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and those 
>> that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision procedure 
>> which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with nonlocal hidden 
>> variables over the projective rays of the state space. In effect there is an 
>> uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize extant quantities, say 
>> with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is the generation of 
>> information in a local context from quantum nonlocality that is not extant, 
>> such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are then auxiliary 
>> physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the framework of what Carrol 
>> and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If 
>> I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the intriguing 
>> question we can address is the nature of the Born rule and its tie into the 
>> auxiliary postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration 
>> be made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might be called the 
>> dialectic opposite of MWI?
>> 
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and 
>> more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to the 
>> Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
>> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 
>> 
>> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
>> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed by 
>> the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly argued. 
>>  
> 
> The idea comes from Tegmark, and I agree with you, it necessitate more than 
> an infinite universe. It requires also some assumption of homogeneity.
> 
> Our universe is, on a large scale, homogeneous. But it can't be infinite 
> since it has only been expanding for finite time, 13.8 BY. I had a discussion 
> with Brent about this some time ago, and he claimed finite in time doesn't 
> preclude infinite in space. I strongly disagree. Perhaps I am missing 
> something. Wouldn't be the first time. AG 
> 
> I think what you may be missing is that in popular (but misleading) accounts 
> of the BB they often say everything originated from a point, rather than 
> everywhere at once.  To say "everything came from a point" is at best only 
>

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)


> On 15 Sep 2019, at 17:58, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:06 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:46:27 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:36 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:25 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:24:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of running 
>> away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on how 
>> supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read their 
>> paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One advantage that 
>> MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of quantum frame 
>> dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be useful for 
>> working with quantum gravity,
>> 
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and those 
>> that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision procedure 
>> which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with nonlocal hidden 
>> variables over the projective rays of the state space. In effect there is an 
>> uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize extant quantities, say 
>> with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is the generation of 
>> information in a local context from quantum nonlocality that is not extant, 
>> such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are then auxiliary 
>> physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the framework of what Carrol 
>> and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If 
>> I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the intriguing 
>> question we can address is the nature of the Born rule and its tie into the 
>> auxiliary postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration 
>> be made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might be called the 
>> dialectic opposite of MWI?
>> 
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and 
>> more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to the 
>> Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
>> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 
>> 
>> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
>> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed by 
>> the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly argued. 
> 
> The idea comes from Tegmark, and I agree with you, it necessitate more than 
> an infinite universe. It requires also some assumption of homogeneity.
> 
> Our universe is, on a large scale, homogeneous. But it can't be infinite 
> since it has only been expanding for finite time, 13.8 BY. I had a discussion 
> with Brent about this some time ago, and he claimed finite in time doesn't 
> preclude infinite in space. I strongly disagree. Perhaps I am missing 
> something. Wouldn't be the first time. AG 
> 
> I think what you may be missing is that in popular (but misleading) accounts 
> of the BB they often say everything originated from a point, rather than 
> everywhere at once.  To say "everything came from a point" is at best only 
> valid for describing the observable universe (or any finite portion of the 
> universe) but is invalid to extrapolate it to the whole univer

Re: Quantum immortality



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:18:29 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> > *With mechanism* [...]
>
>
> Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two 
> words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you or not. Please 
> be more specific and spell out exactly what assumptions you're starting 
> from, your all purpose word "mechanism" just isn't good enough. I thought I 
> knew what "mechanism" mente today but quickly realized I was entirely wrong 
> because immediately after those two words you added  "*you are not 
> identical with your atoms configurations*".
>
> John K Clark
>

By "mechanism" I think he means that a human brain and/or nervous system 
can be replaced by digital circuits, and can reproduce consciousness, if 
computability and the natural numbers are assumed. Agreeing to have your 
brain and/or nervous system replaced is the "Yes doctor" in this scenario. 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aceb658d-3448-458b-bc2c-80cafd53ef79%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:22, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:08:23 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:26 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> *> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there 
>>> must exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently 
>>> claimed by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even 
>>> plausibly argued.  What's the argument for such a claim?*
>>>
>>
>> Of course it's been proven! It's simple math, there are only a finite 
>> number of ways the atoms in your body, or even the entire OBSERVABLE 
>> universe, can be arranged so obviously if the entire universe is infinite 
>> then there is going to have to be copies, an infinite number of them in 
>> fact. Max Tegmark has even calculated how far you'd have to go to see 
>> such a thing. 
>>
>
> What I think you're missing (and Tegmark) is the possibility of 
> UNcountable universes. In such case, one could imagine new universes coming 
> into existence forever and ever, without any repeats.  Think of the number 
> of points between 0 and 1 on the real line, each point associated with a 
> different universe. AG
>
>
>
> Tegmark missed this? 
>
> Deutsch did not, and in his book “fabric of reality”, he gave rather good 
> argument in favour of Everett-type of multiverse having non countable 
> universe. That makes sense with mechanism which give raise to a continuum 
> (2^aleph_0) of histories, but the “equivalence class” brought by the 
> measure can have lower cardinality, or bigger. Open problem, to say the 
> least.
>

*What you're not addressing is that with uncountable universes -- which I 
haven't categorically denied could arise -- it's not obvious that any 
repeats necessarily occur. I don't believe any repeats occur. AG *

*As to your general theory, that with mechanism (replacing brains and 
presumably consciousness, with digital copies), computability, and the 
natural numbers, we can derive the physical universe we observe. This is 
your theory, isn't it? If so, I just don't see it as explanatory. AG*

> Your closest identical copy is 10^12 light years away. About 10^76 light 
>> years away there is a sphere of radius 100 light-years identical to the one 
>> centered here, so everything we see here during the next century will be 
>> identical to those of our counterparts over there. And 10^102 light years 
>> away the is a exact copy of our entire observable universe. And all this is 
>> true regardless of if the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 
>> is correct or not, it only depends on the universe being spatially infinite.
>>
>
> But our universe is NOT spatially infinite if its been expanding for 
> finite time, starting very small, as can be inferred from the temperature 
> of the CMBR. AG 
>
>>
>>
>> Is there a copy of you 
>> 
>>
>> * > Morevover, I don't believe a universe of finite age, such as ours 
>>> which everyone more or less agrees began some 13.8 BYA, can be spatially 
>>> infinite.*
>>>
>>
>> I see no reason in principle why something can't be finite along one 
>> dimension and infinite along another dimension.
>>
>
> In general, one can of course have some dimensions finite and others 
> infinite. But if *our* universe is *finite* *in time* since the BB, 13.8 
> BY, its spatial extent must be finite, since that's how long its been 
> expanding. AG 
>
>
> I agree with Grayson here. (Accepting a lot of premises, like the BB is 
> the beginning of the physical reality, which I doubt).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a270b8e-3bf2-4d34-b0e7-4e0daa3cebce%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e558a41c-3784-4298-80be-52a5e6f45f7f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



> On 14 Sep 2019, at 08:09, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> 
> Am 13.09.2019 um 03:11 schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:
>> On that Evgenii, we do concur. Yet, big companies or big governments 
>> probably head to this guy's door, if they need something to ask?Now, that 
>> may not be a big deal unless he is contributing to the DoD? 
> 
> By organizing a military strike from the parallel universe?

Weinberg, and Plaga on this list, if I remember well,  have argued that for 
this to be possible (an interaction in between parallel universe) you need to 
“delinearise” a little bit Quantum Mechanism. Then you can steal the oil in the 
parallel universe, and perhaps even meet your doppelgänger. 

But there is a price. Not only Special relativity get wrong, but even the 
second principle of thermodynamic get wrong, which demands a lot.

So, no need to frighten us, there are few chance we get invade by super-alien 
from the parallel universe. They can only interfere statistically, like in 
arithmetic, without magic, but by our ignorance on which parts of the structure 
of all computations emulate us.

Bruno





> 
> Evgenii
> 
>> Those comprising this group have interesting mathematical & quantum and 
>> cosmological philosophy, but we are not so prominent. The thinkers here 
>> participate because they love these topics, but their immediate impacts are 
>> something far off, potentially. Now, for me, MWI is fun, in the sense of 
>> science fiction is fun--unless we can somehow do trade somehow between 
>> Earths?I will buy Carroll's book if only for this reason. "A hominid's reach 
>> must exceed his grasp, or what's a multiverse for?" If he is absolutely 
>> wrong and we can prove it, then, very well, onward, to the World Series 
>> (Think FIFA World Cup).
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aeee42ec-d121-97e6-028e-3f2fea3a7c81%40rudnyi.ru.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85A09D9B-C37E-409F-ACF6-687CC9EB6847%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)


> On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:22, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:08:23 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:26 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>  
> > Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
> > exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed 
> > by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly 
> > argued.  What's the argument for such a claim?
> 
> Of course it's been proven! It's simple math, there are only a finite number 
> of ways the atoms in your body, or even the entire OBSERVABLE universe, can 
> be arranged so obviously if the entire universe is infinite then there is 
> going to have to be copies, an infinite number of them in fact. Max Tegmark 
> has even calculated how far you'd have to go to see such a thing. 
> 
> What I think you're missing (and Tegmark) is the possibility of UNcountable 
> universes. In such case, one could imagine new universes coming into 
> existence forever and ever, without any repeats.  Think of the number of 
> points between 0 and 1 on the real line, each point associated with a 
> different universe. AG


Tegmark missed this? 

Deutsch did not, and in his book “fabric of reality”, he gave rather good 
argument in favour of Everett-type of multiverse having non countable universe. 
That makes sense with mechanism which give raise to a continuum (2^aleph_0) of 
histories, but the “equivalence class” brought by the measure can have lower 
cardinality, or bigger. Open problem, to say the least.




> 
> Your closest identical copy is 10^12 light years away. About 10^76 light 
> years away there is a sphere of radius 100 light-years identical to the one 
> centered here, so everything we see here during the next century will be 
> identical to those of our counterparts over there. And 10^102 light years 
> away the is a exact copy of our entire observable universe. And all this is 
> true regardless of if the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is 
> correct or not, it only depends on the universe being spatially infinite.
> 
> But our universe is NOT spatially infinite if its been expanding for finite 
> time, starting very small, as can be inferred from the temperature of the 
> CMBR. AG 
> 
> 
> Is there a copy of you 
> 
> 
> > Morevover, I don't believe a universe of finite age, such as ours which 
> > everyone more or less agrees began some 13.8 BYA, can be spatially infinite.
> 
> I see no reason in principle why something can't be finite along one 
> dimension and infinite along another dimension.
> 
> In general, one can of course have some dimensions finite and others 
> infinite. But if our universe is finite in time since the BB, 13.8 BY, its 
> spatial extent must be finite, since that's how long its been expanding. AG 

I agree with Grayson here. (Accepting a lot of premises, like the BB is the 
beginning of the physical reality, which I doubt).

Bruno



> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a270b8e-3bf2-4d34-b0e7-4e0daa3cebce%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36A320C7-5089-4770-8203-4CB13FCF54FE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)


> On 13 Sep 2019, at 23:44, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 6:24:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of running 
>> away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on how 
>> supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read their 
>> paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One advantage that 
>> MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of quantum frame 
>> dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be useful for 
>> working with quantum gravity,
>> 
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and those 
>> that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision procedure 
>> which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with nonlocal hidden 
>> variables over the projective rays of the state space. In effect there is an 
>> uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize extant quantities, say 
>> with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is the generation of 
>> information in a local context from quantum nonlocality that is not extant, 
>> such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are then auxiliary 
>> physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the framework of what Carrol 
>> and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If 
>> I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the intriguing 
>> question we can address is the nature of the Born rule and its tie into the 
>> auxiliary postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration 
>> be made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might be called the 
>> dialectic opposite of MWI?
>> 
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and 
>> more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to the 
>> Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
>> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 
>> 
>> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
>> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed by 
>> the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly argued. 
> 
> The idea comes from Tegmark, and I agree with you, it necessitate more than 
> an infinite universe. It requires also some assumption of homogeneity.
> 
> Of course, (for those who are aware of Gödel 1931 and Turing 1936), 
> arithmetic contains all computations, which entails, when assuming mechanism, 
> an infinity of each os us. That explains both where the appearance of 
> universe come from, and the quantum mechanical type of formalism. In 
> “many-world”, the “many” makes sense, but the term “world” is not well 
> defined and should not been taken literally. It is more histories than worlds 
> per se.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> It would be best to separate MWI from the multiverse for at least the moment. 
> There are several levels of the multiverse. MWI does define a high level 
> multiverse, but MWI is not all multiverses.
> 
> The first level has to do with what exists beyond the cosmological horizon 
> and in particular if the spatial surface of spacetime is flat. This would be 
> an infinite R^3 manifold. Since the level of complexity or the number of 
> possible states is bounded by the size of the cosmology horizon, out about 13 
> billion light years, this means there are other regions that are copies of 
> this world. This is just plain combinatorics. 
>  
> The type II multiverse, or maybe type IIA, is where a deSitter or FLRW 
> spacetime with an inflationary vacuum at high energy is unstable and there 
> are vacuum transitions in regions within it. These regions have a vacuum at a 
> much lower energy and define what are sometimes called pocket worlds. Since 
> this inflationary cosmology is in a hugely acce

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread Philip Thrift

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
>>> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>>>
>>
>> And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the 
>> possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl 
>> Sagan said  "*The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with 
>> human ambition*".
>>
>  
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with 
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11277

An Apology
Posted on September 15, 2019 
 by woit 

I’m afraid I made a serious mistake in this previous posting discussing *Sean 
Carroll’s new book* . 
Since the book was relatively reasonable, while the jacket and promotional 
material that came with it were nonsense, I assumed that Carroll was just 
being ill-served by his publisher. It’s now clear I was very wrong. He’s on 
a book tour, and the nonsense is exactly what he is putting front and 
center as a revelation to the public about how to understand quantum 
mechanics. For a couple examples, here’s what was on the PBS News Hour 

The “many worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every 
decision you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what 
amounts to a new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical 
physicist Sean Carroll discusses the concept and his new book, “Something 
Deeply Hidden,” with NewsHour Weekend’s Tom Casciato.

and here’s something from his talk down the street from me 
.

Using your public platform to tell people that the way to understand 
quantum mechanics is that the world splits depending on what you decide to 
do is simply What the Bleep? 
 level stupidity. 
Those in the physics and science communication communities who care about 
the public understanding of quantum mechanics should think hard about what 
they can do to deal with this situation. They may however come to the same 
conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll try to do from 
now on.
@philipthrift 

>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc4c393e-7f4c-4146-979a-7e5874f3b4e0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
>> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>>
>
> And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the 
> possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl 
> Sagan said  "*The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with 
> human ambition*".
>
>  John K Clark
>

When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM *and* Relativity, 
people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its 
justification among true believers. So what happened to the (non-covariant) 
wf after the measurement? Nothing. Like a horserace when it reaches 
conclusion, it's no longer applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis 
is just a bookkeeping device to get rid of it! 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8a838fe1-7c2d-41f5-8e46-575816fa69d7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:11:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
>>> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>>>
>>
>> And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the 
>> possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl 
>> Sagan said  "*The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with 
>> human ambition*".
>>
>  
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with 
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>

... and one that isn't even covariant. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6793936a-044b-4dec-8aca-bb87b652fdc7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test



On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 4:06:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Just 4 years ago 700 AI programs competed against each other and tried to 
> pass a 8th-Grade multiple choice Science Test and win a $80,000 prize, but 
> they all flunked, the best one only got 59.3% of the questions correct. But 
> last Wednesday the Allen Institute unveiled a AI called  "Aristo" that got 
> 90.7% correct and then answered 83% of the 12th grade science test 
> questions correctly.
>
> It seems to me that for a long time AI improvement was just creeping along 
> but in the last few years things started to pick up speed.
>
> AI goes from F to A on the N.Y. Regents Science Exam 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers, because 
it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to do. I suppose it could be 
told to do bad things, and if it has inherent defenses, it can't be 
stopped, like Gort in The Day the Earth Stood Still. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a4c2a1b4-ffaf-4fcb-af3b-2aaf3202047d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic



On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:57, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact that 
>> we are from the same species.
> 
> Isn't "species" just an idea in consciousness? I'm trying to score a joke at 
> your expense,

I meant to write "I'm not trying...". Guess the joke's on me this time.

> 
>  I really don't understand how you can use your universal dismissal when it 
> suits you, but appeal to scientific theories otherwise...
> 
>> 
>> On Monday, 16 September 2019 15:09:20 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
>>> > "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps. But so what? Do you agree or not that there is interpersonal 
>>> communication going on? If you do agree, then how do you explain the common 
>>> ground between your experience and mine? 
>>> 
>>> > -- 
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> > Groups "Everything List" group. 
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> > an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.
>>> >  
>>> > 
>> 

>> --
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19f974cc-a4f9-40bd-a387-2e2877f1d15e%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 

> --
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4e19c7d3-c08a-4669-a074-6ddfdcbdf94a%40www.fastmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6040a3e1-94b9-4d68-abc1-82dfb0e28eb2%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic



On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact that 
> we are from the same species.

Isn't "species" just an idea in consciousness? I'm trying to score a joke at 
your expense, I really don't understand how you can use your universal 
dismissal when it suits you, but appeal to scientific theories otherwise...

> 
> On Monday, 16 September 2019 15:09:20 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
>> > "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>> 
>> Perhaps. But so what? Do you agree or not that there is interpersonal 
>> communication going on? If you do agree, then how do you explain the common 
>> ground between your experience and mine? 
>> 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> > Groups "Everything List" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> > an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.
>> >  
>> > 
> 

> --
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19f974cc-a4f9-40bd-a387-2e2877f1d15e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4e19c7d3-c08a-4669-a074-6ddfdcbdf94a%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:40, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 6:17:12 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> Carroll is in irreversible mental decline. He's lost contact with reality. 
> Sad case. I stand by my assessment. He doesn't even understand basic linear 
> algebra, and that his "state vector" has no unique representation, and thus 
> the mythical interpretation of the superposition of the wf is totally 
> illusional. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> He can play with math, like anyone else, but his fictions are a little too 
> real for him.

That is the problem with fictionalism. Like atheism it is not a doctrine, it is 
the statement that “my god is the real one”. 

I guess you know that the physical reality is not itself a fiction, but how can 
you know that?

The idea of doing research is searching the truth.

> 
> In the landscape of fictions modeling quantum phenomena, his not only denies 
> probability, but denies the 'self' (in the sense of consciousness bring a 
> real thing).

The complete contrary. I start from consciousness, I recover consciousness in 
the discourse of the machine, and I listen to what the machine already says, 
and the sound one see quick where the illusion/fiction of a physical primary 
reality comes in.

More precisely, I explain why machine cannot identify the third person self 
([]p) with their first person self ([]p & p) that they cannot even define, 
unless invoking some notion of truth (that they cannot define either by Tarski 
theorem) and … mechanism.

Then I don’t deny probability, again, I justify them, without bring absurd 
notion like events without a cause. That is the whole point of Mechanism: it 
transforms physics into a study of the probability on our consistent (and 
arithmetically sound) extensions. With mechanism, we understand quickly why 
physics is before all a statistic calculus.

You might study my sane04 paper(*), perhaps.

Bruno

(*)B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
(sane04)

> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07640a35-36de-43ec-8338-1c50aeeb39f4%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A351DF1B-B518-4624-8560-01BEE570E34B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

2019-09-16 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact 
that we are from the same species.

On Monday, 16 September 2019 15:09:20 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
> > "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>
> Perhaps. But so what? Do you agree or not that there is interpersonal 
> communication going on? If you do agree, then how do you explain the common 
> ground between your experience and mine? 
>
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> > an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.
>  
>
> > 
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19f974cc-a4f9-40bd-a387-2e2877f1d15e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)


> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:18:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 00:44, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:45:22 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of running 
>> away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on how 
>> supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read their 
>> paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One advantage that 
>> MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of quantum frame 
>> dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be useful for 
>> working with quantum gravity,
>> 
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and those 
>> that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision procedure 
>> which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with nonlocal hidden 
>> variables over the projective rays of the state space. In effect there is an 
>> uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize extant quantities, say 
>> with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is the generation of 
>> information in a local context from quantum nonlocality that is not extant, 
>> such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are then auxiliary 
>> physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the framework of what Carrol 
>> and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If 
>> I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the intriguing 
>> question we can address is the nature of the Born rule and its tie into the 
>> auxiliary postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration 
>> be made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might be called the 
>> dialectic opposite of MWI?
>> 
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and 
>> more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to the 
>> Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> 
>> QBism is not the dialectical opposite of MWI. This is:
>> 
>> https://twitter.com/DowkerFay/status/1110683583570759680 
>> 
>> 
>> @philipthrift 
>> 
>> The MWI and this path integral interpretation are both  ψ-ontic and are thus 
>> not opposite.
> 
> I agree. I would even add that with Feynman path formalism, the reduction of 
> the wave packet does no more make sense. Feynman said it in his little book 
> on light: he consider the Wave reduction as a confusion and appeal to magic 
> (footnote at the end of the second chapter).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Not for those of us who watch horseraces! Applied to QM, the wf becomes 
> irrelevant when the measurement occurs.

I agree. But relevant/irrelevant is not relevant when we search a conceptual 
understanding. That the wave is irrelevant after a measurement does not mean 
that there has been an actual physical collapse, which would entails FTL action 
at a distance, as Einstein explained in 1927 at the Solvay Congress (and made 
precise in the EPR paper, and then more with Bell, etc.). Then Everett QM (QM 
without collapse) the appearance of collapse is explained by the wave (adding 
or not the Born rule).



> Wave packet reduction, by which I assume you mean "collapse", is nothing more 
> than a bookkeeping device. AG 


I can’ agree more, but then, you get the many relative worlds/histories. Which 
is nice, given that the many computations is a theorem of arithmetic, and the 
“many worlds” appearance is provable from that, even without ever mentioning 
quantum mechanics.

Bruno



> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googl

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)


> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:24, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:24:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of running 
>> away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on how 
>> supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read their 
>> paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One advantage that 
>> MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of quantum frame 
>> dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be useful for 
>> working with quantum gravity,
>> 
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and those 
>> that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision procedure 
>> which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with nonlocal hidden 
>> variables over the projective rays of the state space. In effect there is an 
>> uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize extant quantities, say 
>> with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is the generation of 
>> information in a local context from quantum nonlocality that is not extant, 
>> such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are then auxiliary 
>> physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the framework of what Carrol 
>> and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If 
>> I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the intriguing 
>> question we can address is the nature of the Born rule and its tie into the 
>> auxiliary postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration 
>> be made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might be called the 
>> dialectic opposite of MWI?
>> 
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and 
>> more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to the 
>> Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
>> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 
>> 
>> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
>> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed by 
>> the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly argued. 
> 
> The idea comes from Tegmark, and I agree with you, it necessitate more than 
> an infinite universe. It requires also some assumption of homogeneity.
> 
> Our universe is, on a large scale, homogeneous. But it can't be infinite 
> since it has only been expanding for finite time, 13.8 BY.

Assuming that there is a physical universe, and that the big bang is its 
origin. OK.




> I had a discussion with Brent about this some time ago, and he claimed finite 
> in time doesn't preclude infinite in space. I strongly disagree. Perhaps I am 
> missing something. Wouldn't be the first time. AG 


I might be with you on this, at least from a physicalist perspective (in which 
I do not believe, but which could be a consistent theory). From my 
understanding, space itself is born with the Big Bang, *if* the Big Bang is the 
origin (which I doubt), and that implies it is still finite after a finite time.
Now, with mechanism, I could show a model where space is infinite, but I think 
time can be deduced from it to be infinite too, so yes. Maybe Brent can add 
something (maybe he did already).



> 
> Of course, (for those who are aware of Gödel 1931 and Turing 1936), 
> arithmetic contains all computations, which entails, when assuming mechanism, 
> an infinity of each os us.
> 
> I really don't see how you make that jump.

The fact that all computations are executed in arithmetic is "well known” by 
the expert in the field since the 1930s.
("Executed”is used in the mathematical sense of the logiciens who discovered 
the computer). A (universal) Turing machine cannot distinguish, by 
introspection, between being emulated by a physic

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:49 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.*
>

And "consciousness" is just the way data feels when it is being processed.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1UJ%3D_-%3DUkUgJDvwj8ML-SdFwFWOMPk0AmuQOmm9YKG-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *With mechanism* [...]


Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two
words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you or not. Please
be more specific and spell out exactly what assumptions you're starting
from, your all purpose word "mechanism" just isn't good enough. I thought I
knew what "mechanism" mente today but quickly realized I was entirely wrong
because immediately after those two words you added  "*you are not
identical with your atoms configurations*".

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1xdGTxjAnooW9KR-dLzVJ02OC%3DCg3-y___L3pRSPd8xA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
>> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>>
>
> And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the
> possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl
> Sagan said  "*The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with
> human ambition*".
>

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
any humanly devised equation."

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSUoS-nCn4bvavNep6mHNYmeUq_0%2BGMyQQF%2BPxuV8KTBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic




On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.

Perhaps. But so what? Do you agree or not that there is interpersonal 
communication going on? If you do agree, then how do you explain the common 
ground between your experience and mine?

> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b7e46dd4-57d3-48ce-a107-c59465673ec3%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>

And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the
possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl
Sagan said  "*The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with
human ambition*".

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1vpnBqRA05i92cs%3D%2BNS9N-sNmSKAidE%3Dn3gYok4d2%2BzA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

2019-09-16 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d9b03f4-d9fe-4a14-a80a-d873b9219654%40googlegroups.com.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 06:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/15/2019 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Why would it even have a simple goal like "survive”? 
>> It is a short code which makes the organism better for eating and avoiding 
>> being eaten.
> 
> An organism needs to eat and avoid being eaten because that what evolution 
> selects.  AIs don't evolve by natural selection.

A monist who embed the subject in the object will not take the difference 
between artificial and natural too much seriously, as that difference is 
artificial, and thus natural for entities developing super-ego.

Machines and AI does develop by natural/artificial selection, notably through 
economical pressure. The computers need to “earn their life”, by doing some 
work for us. It is only one loop more in the evolution process. That is not 
new. Jacques Lafitte wrote a book in 1911 (published in 1930) where he argues 
that the development of machine is a collateral development of humanity, and 
that this is the continuation of evolution. 

> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> And to help yourself is saying no more that it will have some fundamental 
>>> goal...otherwise there's no distinction between "help" and "hurt”.
>> It helps to eat, it hurts to be eaten. It is the basic idea.
> 
> For "helps" and "hurts" what?  Successful replication?

No. Happiness. The goal is happiness. We forget this because some bandits have 
brainwashed us with the idea that happiness is a sin (to steal our money). 
The goal is happiness, serenity, contemplation, pleasure, joy, … and 
recognising ourselves in as many others as possible. To find unity in the many, 
and the many in unity.

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6cbdd7be-9474-ceb0-86fa-7e269c9c8a71%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/62FF5446-9917-4265-96BF-B95CF3C3233D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

> On 15 Sep 2019, at 14:51, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:51:01 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:07:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> >> The only thing I can ascribe consciousness to with absolute certainty is 
> >> me. As for intelligence, if something, man or machine, has no way of 
> >> knowing when it made a mistake or got a question wrong it will never get 
> >> any better, but if it has feedback and can improve its ability to 
> >> correctly answer difficult questions then it is intelagent. The only 
> >> reason I ascribe intelligence to Einstein is that he greatly improved his 
> >> ability to answer difficult physics questions (like what is the nature of 
> >> space and time?), he was much better at it when he was 27 than when he was 
> >> 7.  
> 
> > The point I am making is that modern computers programmed by skillful 
> > programmers, can improve the "AI"'s performance.
> 
> Well yes. Obviously a skilled programer can improve a AI but that's not the 
> only thing that can, a modern AI programs can improve its own performance.
> 
> I just meant to indicate it can be programmed to improve its performance, but 
> I see nothing to indicate that it's much different from ordinary computers 
> which don't show any property associated with, for want of a better word, 
> WILL. AG 
>  
> > I see nothing to specially characterize this as "artifical intelligence". 
> > What am I missing from your perspective? AG
> 
> It's certainly artificial and if computers had never been invented and a 
> human did exactly what the computer did you wouldn't hesitate for one 
> nanosecond in calling what the human did intelligent, so why in the world 
> isn't it Artificial Intelligence?  
> 
> OK, AG 
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> Bruno seems to think that if some imaginary entity is "computable", it can 
> and must exist as a "physical” entity

Not really. I am claiming that, once we assume mechanism (like Darwin, 
Descartes, Turing, …), then the physical reality cannot be a primary thing, 
i.e. something that we have to assume to get a theory of prediction and 
observation. If something exist in some fundamental sense, it is not as 
physical object, but as a mathematical object. Then Digital Mechanism let us 
choose which Turing universal system (a purely mathematical, even arithmetical 
notion) to postulate, and as elementary arithmetic is such a Universal system, 
I use that one, as people are familiar with it since primary school.

> -- which is why I think he adds "mechanism" to his model for producing 
> conscious beings.

The hypothesis of Mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of 
description of the functioning of my brain such that I would survive, in the 
usual clinical sense, with a computer emulating my brain at that level. It is a 
very weak version of Mechanism, as no bound is put on that description level, 
as long as it exists and is digitally emulable. Typically Penrose is the only 
scientist explicitly negating Mechanism, where Hamerrof is still a mechanist. 
My reasoning works through even if the brain is a quantum computer, thanks to 
Deutsch’s result that a QC does not violate the Church-Turing thesis.

> But this, if correct, seems no different from equating a map to a territory.

That is correct. But that is because a brain is already a sort of map, and a 
sufficiently precise copy of a map is a map.

> If we can write the DNA of a horse with a horn, does this alone ipso facto 
> imply that unicorns are existent beings? AG 

That depends on the definition of unicorn. But staying alive-and-well is a more 
absolute value, that you can judge when serving an operation in a hospital, and 
the mechanist hypothesis is that we can survive with a digital brain 
transplant, like today we could say that we can survive with an artificial 
heart. That’s why give an operational definition of “mechanism” by the fact 
that it means accepting the doctor’s proposition to replace the brain, or the 
body, by a computer.

The negation of Mechanism is much more speculative, because we don’t know any 
non Turing emulable phenomenon in nature (except the wave packet reduction 
fantasy). 

Only ad hoc mathematical construction shows that some non computable functions 
can be solution of the Schroedinger Equation, like Nielsen Ae^iHt with H being 
a non computable real number (like Post, or Chaintin’s numbers).

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 everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/02eba413-dc29-4621-9692-ae9e8cfba125%40googlegroups.com
>  
>

Re: Entropy of early universe

2019-09-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 10:07:28 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> If the early universe, say before the emergence of the CMBR, consisted of 
>> a random collection of electrons and photons, wouldn't this correspond to a 
>> *high*, not low entropy? Wouldn't it be analogous to gas with many 
>> possible states? Yet cosmologists seem hard pressed to explain an initial 
>> or early state assuming the entropy is low. AG
>>
>
> Here's an easier question: when Boltzmann defined entropy as S = k * log 
> N, why the log; why not just k*N? AG
>

 Think of the case where you have binary strings of length n. How many 
possible binary string are there with that length? There are N = 2^n. The 
Boltzman log(N) is just the size of the macrostate, where there are 2^n 
possible microstates. This is where the entropy S = kn comes from, for the 
units of Planck area on the horizon count microstates. We have 

S = k ln(N) = k ln(2^n) = k n ln(2).

With the black hole horizon or any horizon this linear chain is replaced by 
a two dimensional table or matrix. The same argument carries over.

LC

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d15a4c00-0b00-46a8-81ab-37aecb901b9a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 09:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself.

Ok, but we clearly have some common ground. I can send you this message and you 
can read it.

Here's my simplistic / informal understanding of what is going on... Like you, 
I tend to believe that consciousness is more fundamental than physics, and I 
also agree that "human physics" is just an idea in consciousness. I think that 
we might diverge in that I also believe that science points to something real, 
as in, real phenomena with discernible patterns that you and me can agree with. 
My understanding is that you, me, everyone else are "windows" through which 
reality can be experienced. As far as I am concerned, first person experience 
is REALLY REAL(tm) and independent third person reality is a useful model with 
an unknown (perhaps unknowable) ontological status.

My point: why wouldn't an algorithm become such a "window" from which reality 
can be experienced? What's special about wet brains? This seems particularly 
obvious to me given that I have never even met you in person. You could be an 
algorithm running in silicon, as far as I am concerned.

Telmo.

> 
> On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>> You mean human consciousness or something bigger? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>>  From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>>  To: Everything List 
>>  Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:39 am
>>  Subject: Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic
>> 
>> 
>> The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> 
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83cd060e-aad2-4f17-ad6a-be72abb4aa08%40googlegroups.com.
>>  
>> 
> 

> --
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc1035f-25f8-4d60-a5c1-53bf4ff04381%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3f4f7c65-f2e6-432d-a209-4dc5b46133d4%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

2019-09-16 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself.

On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You mean human consciousness or something bigger? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List  >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:39 am
> Subject: Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic
>
> The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in consciousness. 
>
>
> -- 
> 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+unsub...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83cd060e-aad2-4f17-ad6a-be72abb4aa08%40googlegroups.com.
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc1035f-25f8-4d60-a5c1-53bf4ff04381%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread Philip Thrift



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>




"Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c253db8c-0936-4e5c-a897-fca18b311431%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Entropy of early universe



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:23:09 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:13:27PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > 
> > If the early universe, say before the emergence of the CMBR, 
> consisted of a 
> > random collection of electrons and photons, wouldn't this correspond 
> to a 
> > high, not low entropy? Wouldn't it be analogous to gas with many 
> possible 
> > states? Yet cosmologists seem hard pressed to explain an initial or 
> early 
> > state assuming the entropy is low. AG 
> > 
> > 
> > When I was an undergraduate I took a course in Classical Thermodynamics 
> and 
> > recall being satisfied that entropy was well-defined. I never took a 
> course in 
> > Classical Statistical Mechanics, but I've seen Boltzmann's equation for 
> S and 
> > wonder how N, the number of possible states is defined. If we have a gas 
> > enclosed in a container, we can divide it into occupation cells of fixed 
> volume 
> > to calcuate S. But why can't we double the number of cells by reducing 
> their 
> > volume by half? How then is S well defined in the case of Classical 
> Statistical 
> > Mechanics? TIA, AG 
>
> It actually isn't. The point bothered me too. The number of states is 
> basically V/h, where V is the volume of phase space occupied by the 
> system, and h a cell size. Therefore, entropy is 
>
> klog V  - klog h 
>
> For a large range of values of h, the second term is just a negligible 
> constant offset to the total entropy. However, as h→0, entropy blows 
> up. And that what classical statistical mechanics tells you. 
>

How could the second term be negligible for large values of h? AG 

>
> Enter quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's uncertainty relation tells us 
> that ΔxΔp ≥ ℏ, so in the above entropy formula, h is constrained to be 
> larger than ℏ³. Quantum mechanics saves classical statistical physics' 
> bacon. Nothing blows up. 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a314df1-ffa8-4369-8045-e395c2e8d8db%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>

Jason; it turns out you were right about the consensus among cosmologists; 
that the universe is thought to be *flat*. But I am studying some videos 
which seem to suggest that a flat universe can be* finite* in spatial 
extent, maybe like a cyclinder without an edge. Try try this, and the two 
which follow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM&feature=youtu.be

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba3c6896-0514-4d7f-b6a8-a086b2153882%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Entropy of early universe

2019-09-16 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:13:27PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> If the early universe, say before the emergence of the CMBR, consisted of 
> a
> random collection of electrons and photons, wouldn't this correspond to a
> high, not low entropy? Wouldn't it be analogous to gas with many possible
> states? Yet cosmologists seem hard pressed to explain an initial or early
> state assuming the entropy is low. AG
> 
> 
> When I was an undergraduate I took a course in Classical Thermodynamics and
> recall being satisfied that entropy was well-defined. I never took a course in
> Classical Statistical Mechanics, but I've seen Boltzmann's equation for S and
> wonder how N, the number of possible states is defined. If we have a gas
> enclosed in a container, we can divide it into occupation cells of fixed 
> volume
> to calcuate S. But why can't we double the number of cells by reducing their
> volume by half? How then is S well defined in the case of Classical 
> Statistical
> Mechanics? TIA, AG

It actually isn't. The point bothered me too. The number of states is
basically V/h, where V is the volume of phase space occupied by the
system, and h a cell size. Therefore, entropy is

klog V  - klog h

For a large range of values of h, the second term is just a negligible
constant offset to the total entropy. However, as h→0, entropy blows
up. And that what classical statistical mechanics tells you.

Enter quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's uncertainty relation tells us
that ΔxΔp ≥ ℏ, so in the above entropy formula, h is constrained to be
larger than ℏ³. Quantum mechanics saves classical statistical physics'
bacon. Nothing blows up.

-- 


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190916072249.GC5030%40zen.

Re: Entropy of early universe