date:20200504



Latest release:

https://twitter.com/EinsteinPy/status/1257452756413165568

@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/e97522ce-5c96-4459-af0c-fb790517e4d6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Observer & The Existence of Reality

2020-05-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

You're leaving out the pre-historic part. Among primitive peoples,
explanations are mixtures of supernatural agency, empirical knowledge,
and magic. Magic and empiricism gave rise to alchemy and attempts to
control supernatural agents thru spells and incantations; which led
eventually to astronomy and science. I don't identify science only with
mathematical reasoning. The guy who learned to fletch arrows to make
them fly true was doing science. So was they guy who found his crops
grew better if he added manure. So was the guy who learned the stars
could predict how long until springtime.

Supernatural agency plus magic gave rise to shamans and priests and
religion. It gave comfort and control (c.f. The Grand Inquisitor). It's
telling that among the most primitive people the agents are natural
phenomenon, like storms and volcanoes, or powerful animals, like bears
and lions. But as humans became dominant the agents became super men
and women.

So I don't think of theology as pre-dating science. I just think
science and magic and religion were a single kind of thing which
eventually separated into the threads we identify today.

Brent

On 5/4/2020 3:52 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Theology has nothing to do with science. There are what might be
called pre-scientific thinking as a branch of philosophy. Science
though came about from the ideas of Roger Bacon and were applied and
firmed up by Galileo. Theology predates that by centuries. I would say
Christian theology came about with Augustine in the early 5th century.
It is reasonable to say that science emerged from philosophy combined
with the practical arts such as metallurgy, glass making, tool making
and so forth. There were some pre-scientists, Greeks such as a
Democritus and medieval scholars such as Oresme and Grosseteste did
some attempts at science, but they did not have the discipline with
empiricism quite right. This was emerging as a branch of philosophy.
Theology predated medieval pre-science by centuries.

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 5/4/2020 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I might disagree. Especially if you keep in mind that theology
ws born
> as a science, before becoming an institionised oppression
system, when
> separated from science for that purpose.

Yes, it was born as explanation for natural phenomena in terms of
human
emotions, because human emotion was directly experienced and
seemed to
need no explanation. So when a storm was explained as the sky became
angry that seemed easy to believe and one had only to discern why the
sky was angry. The priest or chief or your mother explained it was
because you didn't sacrifice a goat to him, or you disobeyed a
rule, or
you didn't eat your spinach. But there were many phenomena.
Monotheism
simplified the system and provided one-stop shopping...as soon as
a few
wars and inquisitions settled which one God was the really real one.

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/380ab766-1e4f-4e30-b6e9-fdda29d50f14%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/aa34be3d-2656-e81e-dfbe-981e21f3f53d%40verizon.net.

Re: The Observer & The Existence of Reality

Theology has nothing to do with science. There are what might be called 
pre-scientific thinking as a branch of philosophy. Science though came 
about from the ideas of Roger Bacon and were applied and firmed up by 
Galileo. Theology predates that by centuries. I would say Christian 
theology came about with Augustine in the early 5th century. It is 
reasonable to say that science emerged from philosophy combined with the 
practical arts such as metallurgy, glass making, tool making and so forth. 
There were some pre-scientists, Greeks such as a Democritus and medieval 
scholars such as Oresme and Grosseteste did some attempts at science, but 
they did not have the discipline with empiricism quite right. This was 
emerging as a branch of philosophy. Theology predated medieval pre-science 
by centuries.

LC

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/4/2020 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > I might disagree. Especially if you keep in mind that theology ws born 
> > as a science, before becoming an institionised oppression system, when 
> > separated from science for that purpose. 
>
> Yes, it was born as explanation for natural phenomena in terms of human 
> emotions, because human emotion was directly experienced and seemed to 
> need no explanation.  So when a storm was explained as the sky became 
> angry that seemed easy to believe and one had only to discern why the 
> sky was angry.  The priest or chief or your mother explained it was 
> because you didn't sacrifice a goat to him, or you disobeyed a rule, or 
> you didn't eat your spinach.  But there were many phenomena.  Monotheism 
> simplified the system and provided one-stop shopping...as soon as a few 
> wars and inquisitions settled which one God was the really real one. 
>
> 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/380ab766-1e4f-4e30-b6e9-fdda29d50f14%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop



On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:47:41 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell  > a écrit :
>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>>> > The SSH 
>>> > 
>>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>>> > 
>>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>>> > 
>>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>>> > 
>>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>>> > 
>>> > etc. 
>>> > 
>>> > * or physicalist 
>>> > 
>>> > @philipthrift 
>>>
>>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>>> that. 
>>>
>>> Saibal 
>>
>>
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
>> have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>> centuries to underlie biology.
>>
>
> Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something 
> (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it 
> miss the things it purpose to explain.
>
> When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't 
> see how that could be explained away... 
>
>
> I think the problem here is with the word "explain".   Yes, physics will 
> never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or gravity, or 
> entropy either.  Physics is regarded as successful because it makes good 
> predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  Look at the 
> controversy over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  We have 
> drastically different "explanations" of what is happening...which have zero 
> effect on the application or usefulness of the theory.  And that's exactly 
> the same situation with regard to consciousness and qualia.  Chemistry and 
> biology have a lot of of good "explanations" of quale in the sense of being 
> able to predict them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's no where near as deep 
> as physics explanations which reach down to sub-atomic level.  But physics 
> aims for depth and bypasses the complex problems of biology as accidents of 
> evolution, mere geography problems.  There's no reason to suppose that 
> chemistry and molecular biology and study of brain structure and AI will 
> not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness.  And it still 
> won't "explain" quale, but it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI 
> and people will forget all about how mysterious they were...just like they 
> have forgotten elan vitale.
>
> Brent
>
>
If we can program "matter" (or whatever we want to call it) to *accomplish 
t goals* we want

 
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/04/24/substrate-targeted-programming-stp/
 

then that's enough:

* send people to the moon
* output bioforms/molecules that can eliminate a killer virus
* program the human biocomputer [ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_biocomputer ] qualia processing
* ...

@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/3c83a3bf-fbd3-4932-9b2d-3bf3b16e7236%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Observer & The Existence of Reality

2020-05-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 5/4/2020 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I might disagree. Especially if you keep in mind that theology ws born 
as a science, before becoming an institionised oppression system, when 
separated from science for that purpose. 


Yes, it was born as explanation for natural phenomena in terms of human 
emotions, because human emotion was directly experienced and seemed to 
need no explanation.  So when a storm was explained as the sky became 
angry that seemed easy to believe and one had only to discern why the 
sky was angry.  The priest or chief or your mother explained it was 
because you didn't sacrifice a goat to him, or you disobeyed a rule, or 
you didn't eat your spinach.  But there were many phenomena.  Monotheism 
simplified the system and provided one-stop shopping...as soon as a few 
wars and inquisitions settled which one God was the really real one.


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/9c2074b5-b3f6-ba15-f08d-80c9ab1d5337%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

2020-05-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
> a écrit :

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
> The SSH
>
> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>
> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics
today.(IT
> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of
idealism.
>
> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions,
forces - but
> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth
force/field).
>
>
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

>
> etc.
>
> * or physicalist
>
> @philipthrift

Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness
and other
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems
against
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems
in one
fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as
people
engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily
advertise their
pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases
physicalist
theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would
like to see
a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument
that it is
consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail
than just
that.

Saibal 

I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are
illusions. I have far more confidence in physics than I do in
hopeful ideas about qualia, which are psychological form of elan
vital thought in previous centuries to underlie biology.

Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean 
something (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot 
account for that, it miss the things it purpose to explain.

When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I 
don't see how that could be explained away...

I think the problem here is with the word "explain".   Yes, physics will 
never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or gravity, or 
entropy either.  Physics is regarded as successful because it makes good 
predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  Look at the 
controversy over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  We have 
drastically different "explanations" of what is happening...which have 
zero effect on the application or usefulness of the theory.  And that's 
exactly the same situation with regard to consciousness and qualia.  
Chemistry and biology have a lot of of good "explanations" of quale in 
the sense of being able to predict them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's 
no where near as deep as physics explanations which reach down to 
sub-atomic level.  But physics aims for depth and bypasses the complex 
problems of biology as accidents of evolution, mere geography problems.  
There's no reason to suppose that chemistry and molecular biology and 
study of brain structure and AI will not reach the same depth of 
explanation of consciousness.  And it still won't "explain" quale, but 
it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI and people will forget 
all about how mysterious they were...just like they have forgotten elan 
vitale.

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/793213e0-89f6-f6fa-bc72-4c3b7608fe34%40verizon.net.

Re: The Wolfram Model

2020-05-04 Thread ronaldheld

I do not understand the basic graph math.   Maybe do as Sean Caroll says to 
do?
  Ronald
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @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/09168af6-5955-4abd-8618-01f1b109a2c7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

2020-05-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/4/2020 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift > wrote:




I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why 
there is this complaint against the Wolfram Model -


Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question.


Sean Carroll was asked about it and said that he was not inclined to 
study it until Wolfram published a paper solving some specific problem.  
There are always proposed Theories of Everything which purport to 
contain all solutions to all outstanding problems...BUT the solution is 
just "in there somewhere".


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/64d425c5-73fe-5fce-66ca-716a8e7063cf%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

2020-05-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/4/2020 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 May 2020, at 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:

The SSH

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247

still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.

It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

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

etc.

* or physicalist

@philipthrift

Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell swoop.

Really? What are 'all these problems that are solved’?

A reduction of why there is something to the existence of arithmetic + an
explanation of why it is possible to explain arithmetic from less.

"Reduction of there is something to the existence of arithmetic"?? I
can't even parse what problem that is...much less how you have solved
it. William S. Cooper has a good explanation from evolution.

Then the mind body problem, including why there are physical laws, and this
from a “simple” theory of consciousness. Here physics is unable to predict why
we see an eclipse when we use physics to predict an eclipse.

But physics can predict why we don't see an eclipse if we look the wrong
direction or if we wear a hood or if we close our eyes or if our optic
nerve is damaged. None of which are explained by your theory.

Does it explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious?

That is what mechanism explains the best.

Does it explain how anesthesia works?

Certainly better than particles physics. But ye, it does not solve all
problems. It formulates them, and we have to solve them one by one, like always
in science.

In the meantime, chemisty does explain how anesthesia works. And the
explanation is based on the theory that consciousness in produced by the
brain and depends on the diffusion of hormones across synaptic gaps.

Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia? Drunkeness? Does it explain the
evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the brain? Dementia? Childhood
amnesia?

Yes. Why not?

You say why not. Why not explain those things. Fine, then where is the
explanation? You claim the Greeks and the neo-Platonists had all this
figured out. So they had a 900yr head start over Galileo and
Newton...and produced nothing.

Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X,

Has not, and cannot once we believe in say, Darwinism.

so by rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.

Yes, but the simplest explanation, with the biggest range of explanation will
be the best. Physicalism remains based on a ontological commitment, which is
the sort of “miracle” that scientists are skeptical about.

We don’t have evidence for a primary physical universe. The dream argument
explains why evidence for a physical reality is not evidence for a primitive
physical reality.

That we know the difference explains why the dream argument fails.

Brent

We confuse them due to a very long pseudo-religious brainwashing, to be short.

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/f4746a82-54b6-3397-6084-08817b3d196e%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/fca45887-1b3a-1ea6-5865-afa02c9e6fd2%40verizon.net.

Re: What does "physical" mean?

2020-05-04 Thread John Clark

Galen Strawson

>*What does the word ‘physical’ mean in its most general theoretical
> philosophical use? It’s used in many different ways, and it’s hard to
> imagine that philosophers could reach agreement on a best use. *
>

Yes, and that's why unlike physicists and mathematicians philosophers
haven't discovered anything new in a thousand years, they can't even
agree on what questions to ask much less find the answers.


> *> Should we tie the meaning of ‘physical’ closely to physics?*
>

Obviously physics is the study of the physical so the answer is yes.


> To do so (in a non-circular way)
>
All definitions of "physical" or of anything else becomes circular if you
go far enough, that's why language needs examples to give words meaning, so
physics is what physicists study.

> *is to run the risk of ruling out the possibility that there might be two
> different universes that were ‘formally’ or structurally identical or
> homomorphic although substantially different—made of different stuff.*
>
I don't know what identical but substantially different means but another
good definition of physical is one of Richard Feynman's favorite words,
"stuff".

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/CAJPayv0SRJ3DfVEgr%2B-RnUsnBtwDgqPwWX14JTSfOpFqTOGu%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop



"Self-reference" in programming - going back to Brian Smith's 3-Lisp

   http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar19_86/p19-smith.pdf

- is a bit not-quite-real in the context of "The Self" of consciousness 
(self) realism (Galen Strawson). 

   
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/Self.pdf

@philipthrift



On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:59:04 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Self-reference is a case where the computation is not complete or can't be 
> quantified. We might then consider consciousness as a strange-loop where 
> the process can't be quantified, or any attempt to do so will always exceed 
> the capacity of the processor.
>
> LC
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>>
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>>
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>>
>> Saibal 
>>
>>
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>>
>>
>> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>> centuries to underlie biology.
>>
>> 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/9597f679-52f6-4504-9004-04e1fe45e61b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

Self-reference is a case where the computation is not complete or can't be
quantified. We might then consider consciousness as a strange-loop where
the process can't be quantified, or any attempt to do so will always exceed
the capacity of the processor.

LC

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > The SSH
> >
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
> >
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
> >
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
> >
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > * or physicalist
> >
> > @philipthrift
>
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just
> that.
>
> Saibal
>
>
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>
>
> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
>
> Telmo.
>
> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous
> centuries to underlie biology.
>
> 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/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%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/CAAFA0qo57yoD99OT-TYmxXVs4C1FODM%3DJSsKN4z%2BHNMRxEGN-g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

2020-05-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>>
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> > The SSH
>> >
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>> >
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
>> >
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
>> >
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>> >
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > * or physicalist
>> >
>> > @philipthrift
>>
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just
>> that.
>>
>> Saibal
>
>
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I
> have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous
> centuries to underlie biology.
>

Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something
(but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it
miss the things it purpose to explain.

When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't
see how that could be explained away...

Quentin


> 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/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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/CAMW2kAoznb2X48gQq0domodP-%3DKU84o4VwZKtOw6xRSqLJJYtw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

2020-05-04 Thread Telmo Menezes



Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> > https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>> 
>> Saibal 
> 
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.

Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?

Telmo.

>  I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
> centuries to underlie biology.
> 
> 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/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%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/fb72afca-3b77-447d-88d2-65286e0fe542%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The SSH 
> > 
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
> > 
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
> > 
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
> > 
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > etc. 
> > 
> > * or physicalist 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
>
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
> that. 
>
> Saibal 


I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
centuries to underlie biology.

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/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 5:35:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there 
> is this complaint against the Wolfram Model -
>
>
> Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question. 
>
>
>
On what basis do you draw that conclusion? I am not a panegyric for 
Wolfram's theory at this time. I have not studied it enough to make a 
judgment. It appears to be a form of combinatorics combined with the sort 
of AI based graphs Nerode introduced to categorize the Chomsky hierarchy of 
grammars. This then might have at least some facet of the foundations of 
physics. At this time I really do not know.

LC
 

>
> but not many complaints about
>
> Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
>
>
>
> For a mechanist, Thea priori  question is why only those many worlds, as 
> it *seems* to be a filtration on “all computations”. I have thought that 
> Nature refutes mechanism, because I thought obvious that the physical 
> universe was unique, but then physics confirms the “obvious” all 
> computations aspect of arithmetic.
>
>
>
> Ghost fields - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics)
>
>
> I have no clues on this, yet.
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> etc.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions 
>> does his model make,and can it be falsified?
>>   Ronald
>> n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
>>> foundation" of physics has a name: 
>>> *The Wolfram Model.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
>>> *Model*
>>> Jonathan Gorard
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
>>> *Jonathan Gorard*
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> @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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af0a2949-5a75-4d99-9ff4-5639b356b90a%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/290dc535-8f52-45ec-9265-afac3f3e3024%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Have Goldstone bosons been *experimentally verified* to exist?
>
> @philipthrift
>

Indirectly they have been verified. The coupled Z and W particles with the 
Goldstone bosons have amplitudes corresponding to that, rather than the 
case where they are massless. 

LC
 

>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:20:04 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there 
>> is this complaint against the Wolfram Model - but not many complaints about
>>
>> Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
>> Ghost fields - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics)
>> etc.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions 
>>> does his model make,and can it be falsified?
>>>   Ronald
>>> n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:


 The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
 foundation" of physics has a name: 
 *The Wolfram Model.*



 *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
 *Model*
 Jonathan Gorard

 https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf

 *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
 *Jonathan Gorard*

 https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf


 @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/ba3d0aa4-aed6-40ea-8ca1-75a8ec1193fe%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

Ghost fields are scalar fields that have Fermi-Dirac statistics. Popov 
introduced these as a way of introducing constraints to counter certain 
degrees of freedom in gauge theories, These are then really a way of 
countering four degrees of freedom of a gauge field, when there are only 2 
polarizations. There is the Villars ghost that has negative norm, which 
could be a way of managing the negative probabilities that crop up in 
quantum gravitation. These are then not so much physical fields that are 
measured, but rather techniques for managing gauge redundancies.

Many worlds theories are not really theories, but interpretations. 

LC

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 4:20:04 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there 
> is this complaint against the Wolfram Model - but not many complaints about
>
> Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
> Ghost fields - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics)
> etc.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions 
>> does his model make,and can it be falsified?
>>   Ronald
>> n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
>>> foundation" of physics has a name: 
>>> *The Wolfram Model.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
>>> *Model*
>>> Jonathan Gorard
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
>>> *Jonathan Gorard*
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> @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/fe307e62-2a33-4dbb-adeb-4ad6794e831a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

2020-05-04 Thread Alan Grayson



On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 3:20:04 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there 
> is this complaint against the Wolfram Model - but not many complaints about
>
> Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132
> Ghost fields - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics)
> etc.
>
> @philipthrift
>

No complaints about Many Worlds theories? Haven't you been paying 
attention? AG 

>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions 
>> does his model make,and can it be falsified?
>>   Ronald
>> n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
>>> foundation" of physics has a name: 
>>> *The Wolfram Model.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
>>> *Model*
>>> Jonathan Gorard
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
>>> *Jonathan Gorard*
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> @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/37a7c40d-7384-40c6-a905-a865ec2636bd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Observer & The Existence of Reality

> On 2 May 2020, at 17:33, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
>  
> everything-list@googlegroups.com  
> Saturday, May 2, 2020 8:26 AM Subject: Re: The Observer & The Existence of 
> Reality 
> [Bruno Marchal]
> That [in red italics at the bottom] is a bit unclear to me. At least Einstein 
> knew that Materialism, or the belief in a physical universe is a religious, 
> mystical sort of belief. With mechanism, we can formulate the mind-bod 
> problem into a testable theory, so let continue the testing, and let us do 
> philosophy/metaphysics/theology (chose you favorite name for the fundamental 
> science) with the scientific attitude. Bruno
> [Philip Benjamin]
> I recognize the difficulty here. The general tendency of the “educated” West 
> is to treat all and everything alike, but that is far from the reality of 
> things as they are, especially between the East and West as exemplified by 
> the ballad of Rudyard Kipling. Perhaps, Einstein had his own mystical notions 
> of reality,

Yes. He made that clear in some of his philosophical writing. He remained 
Aristotelian, but with the awareness that this is already a mystical insight. 
Eventually, he understood that he could be wrong on this during his late 
discussion with Gödel (who was not a naturalist).

> but that is distinctly different from Bohr’s Taoism.

My understanding of Bohr is that he was a dualist, even ready to believe in a 
duality classical/quantum, related to a duality micro/macro, if not mind/matter.

> Yin-Yang has nothing to do with particle or wave. There was no need to change 
> the de Broglie’s wave-likenessto Bohr’s waviness; the former is subject to an 
> AS IF logic, the latter is a BOTH & fallacy. Furthermore. Bohr indulged in 
> the circular reasoning of consciousness (of what?, of whose?) collapsing 
> wavefunction (of what?, electrons?, nucleons?) which collapse then creates 
> consciousness. He had already assigned the electrons to various predetermined 
> “stationary orbits” or “energy levels”. They are all already collapsed 
> everywhere, including the slits, into rock solidenergy levels. 

Which makes you assertion of Bohr being a taoist even more intriguing. Taoism 
is usually considered as a monism.

> Let me jump here to Augustine, the architect of Western civilization, 
> completely ignored or detested by the WAMP. He was a Phoenician pagan 
> profligate.

He was a christian reader of Plotinus. He is the one saving Plato in the 
christian tradition. I have a rather high opinion, if we abstract from its 
antisemitism (but that was common those days, if not nowadays).

> His “consciousness” was instantly transformed by an event caused by 
> “accidental” singing of children in a park 
> (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine 
> ),
>  most likelyunknown to Bohr who was also an indirect or incidental 
> beneficiary of that “quickening”. How can any science account for that?

You might read my paper on the West and the East. Science predict a sort of 
experience of that kind (and many others) to all universal machine looking 
inward (in the sense of Gödel).

> Augustine bridged the gap between the wisdom of Athens (classical 
> antiquity) with the Revelations of Jerusalem (Hebrew knowledge) and with the 
> glory of Rome (City of God, 413–426/427, was written when the empire was 
> under attack by Germanic pagan tribes with un-awakened consciousness,...). He 
> did it by “baptizing” Platonic metaphysics, epistemology and ideas of 
> “forms”, into the Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) as a 
> source of absolute goodness and truth. If it were not so, Western science 
> could never have originated or developed.

I tend to agree with this, but  have to continue the research. 

> Bohr probably would have been practicing Lotus Pose of meditation.

To me, this applies perhaps better to Schroedinger, except that he uses the 
Hindu vocabulary.

> 
> Questions of aseity, infinite regress, origin, morals, meaning, eschaton etc. 
> are not within the scope of any science.

I might disagree. Especially if you keep in mind that theology ws born as a 
science, before becoming an institionised oppression system, when separated 
from science for that purpose. 

But I do not believe in science per se, only in the scientific attitude, and 
this is only the skeptical doubting attitude, and the awareness we never known 
the truth as such. Science like intelligence is only the ability to say “oh! I 
was wrong”. 

> For Augustine and the West (not the WAMP) the buck stopped at Adonai (plural) 
> YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural), not some nebulous

Re: The Wolfram Model


> On 3 May 2020, at 23:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a mathematician - not a physicist - but I don't understand why there is 
> this complaint against the Wolfram Model -

Because it cannot work, nor does it agrees the fundamental question. 



> but not many complaints about
> 
> Many Worlds theories - https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08132 
> 

For a mechanist, Thea priori  question is why only those many worlds, as it 
*seems* to be a filtration on “all computations”. I have thought that Nature 
refutes mechanism, because I thought obvious that the physical universe was 
unique, but then physics confirms the “obvious” all computations aspect of 
arithmetic.



> Ghost fields - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics) 
> 
I have no clues on this, yet.

Bruno 



> etc.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:02:00 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
> 
> I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions does 
> his model make,and can it be falsified?
>   Ronald
> n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: The Wolfram Model.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram
> Model
> Jonathan Gorard
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>  
> 
> 
> Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model
> Jonathan Gorard
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>  
> 
> 
> 
> @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/af0a2949-5a75-4d99-9ff4-5639b356b90a%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/F6F66414-5631-4F9D-B71D-53EB0260020F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

> On 4 May 2020, at 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> The SSH
>>> 
>>>   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>>> 
>>> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
>>> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
>>> 
>>> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
>>> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
>>> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
>>> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
>>> 
>>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>>> 
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> * or physicalist
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell 
>> swoop. 
> 
> Really?  What are 'all these problems that are solved’? 

A reduction of why there is something to the existence of arithmetic + an 
explanation of why it is possible to explain arithmetic from less.

Then the mind body problem, including why there are physical laws, and this 
from a “simple” theory of consciousness. Here physics is unable to predict why 
we see an eclipse when we use physics to predict an eclipse.

> Does it explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious? 

That is what mechanism explains the best. 

> Does it explain how anesthesia works? 

Certainly better than particles physics. But ye, it does not solve all 
problems. It formulates them, and we have to solve them one by one, like always 
in science.

> Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia?  Drunkeness?  Does it explain the 
> evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the brain?  Dementia?  
> Childhood amnesia?

Yes. Why not?

> 
> Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X,

Has not, and cannot once we believe in say, Darwinism.

> so by rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.

Yes, but the simplest explanation, with the biggest range of explanation will 
be the best. Physicalism remains based on a ontological commitment, which is 
the sort of “miracle” that scientists are skeptical about.

We don’t have evidence for a primary physical universe. The dream argument 
explains why evidence for a physical reality is not evidence for a primitive 
physical reality. We confuse them due to a very long pseudo-religious 
brainwashing, to be short.

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/f4746a82-54b6-3397-6084-08817b3d196e%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/50439EDC-4A71-4A81-94B0-66C8D3179FC8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

> On 4 May 2020, at 05:14, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> The SSH
>>  https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
>> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
>> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
>> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
>> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
>> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>> etc.
>> * or physicalist
>> @philipthrift
> 
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism.

Yes, that was the basic insight from which science is born with Pythagorus and 
Plato. Then Aristotle came back with the idea, by a sort of reaction. Most 
people want to believe in a creation (and sometimes in a creator).

Matter is an invention so as to make the mind-body problem unsolvable, to allow 
superstition and fake religion to be used by tyran and manipulators (instead of 
doing research and accept pur ignorance).

> Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell swoop.

But it has to deduce physics from reason only. It is the origin of theoretical 
physics, but this has been missed by the metaphysicians.

> But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people engaging with 
> non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their pet theories because 
> they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist theories suffer from. The 
> bar has to be set higher, I would like to see a derivation of the laws of 
> physics, not some vague argument that it is consistent with QM and unitary 
> evolution but a lot more detail than just that.

If mechanism is true, physics is just the mathematics of the observable 
predicate, like []p & p with p partially computable, and []p & <>t, and []p & 
<>t & p, and then the G*/G separation, not only give the theory of quanta, but 
also the theory of qualia, and the explanation of consciousness, including why 
we cannot uindesrtand completely that theory, etc.

There is no choice in this. Materialsm remains coherent, but ask for a non 
computationalist theory of mind, which simply does not exist (except for vague 
fairy tales which are simply not theories in the scientific meaning of the 
term). 

Bruno

> 
> Saibal
> 
> -- 
> 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/c7482009376988ca1402b892670c19da%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
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/5F4CE991-4935-4CD1-BAA1-566E8AB58893%40ulb.ac.be.

What does "physical" mean?