Re: EinsteinPy

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:47:15AM +0200, smitra wrote:
> Isn't Python too slow for such simulation work?

The heavy lifting is done in C++, with full HPC support (OpenMP and
MPI). EcoLab naturally embeds an interpreter, which is currently TCL,
enabling rapid setting up of different experiements. Thinki of it like
Tensorflow, not "everything done in Python".


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  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/20200506022534.GA26429%40zen.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/5/2020 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 4 May 2020, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> 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


OK.




and AI will not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness.


Once you invoke AI or mechanism, the deep explanation will have to 
reduce physics to some mathematics (indeed to G* intensional variant). 
Or it brings magical ontological commitment just to hide ignorance, 
and that is bad religion/philosophy.





And it still won't "explain" quale,


Where Mechanism does.




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.


Even the AI will not been convinced by this. The élan vitale does not 
explain one thing.


Right.  And neither does "mechanism".

The qualia are just unavoidable data, which, when we suppose mechanism 
are easier to explain, and indeed already explains the existence of 
quanta as first person sharable qualia.


Mechanism explains, in a coherent and testable way, why we feel like 
if there was a material reality, and a mental reality.


No it doesn't.  You just say it must.  It does not explain why you and I 
agree on what this sentence says.


Adding a magical primitive matter makes that explanation no more 
working, so why to add it?


Every time I refer to matter in an explanation, you falsely accuse me of 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if mechanism 
is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many computations in 
all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you prefer).
And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
believe.


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/dc764642-dd49-70b2-e84f-363efe66582c%40verizon.net.

Re: EinsteinPy

[ronaldheld]

Does anyone use this?   IMO, Pytjon is slower than my F77/90 executables, 
but I have never tried a direct comparison.  IMO, it is Pytjon-mania.
 Ronald
On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> 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/4f009ce7-777c-4c10-9f18-1c7fedbb209f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Lawrence Crowell]

As a strange loop consciousness may be an illusion having an illusion of 
itself.

LC

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 6:17:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2020, at 15:00, 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?
>
>
> Yes. Consciousness cannot be an illusion, as a genuine illusion needs 
> consciousness. LC’s remark does not makes sense. It looks like the usual 
> physicalist attempt to put the mind-body problem under the rug.
>
> With mechanism, it is the PRIMITIVE physical universe which is an 
> illusion, and up to now, that illusion is explained by the number relation, 
> except for our belief in numbers, which is still completely explained as 
> being necessarily not explainable from less (or equivalent). That is why I 
> claim that mechanism does solve the mind body problem, where adding 
> infinities in the physical world just suggest a non mechanist theory of 
> mind, which add difficulties without reason.
>
> There are no evidence for a primitive physical universe. There strong 
> evidence for the existence of a physical universe or physical reality, but 
> no evidence for its pirmaryness, as the antic greek understood very well, 
> when inventing Mathematics (a mathematician was a pholospher skeptic about 
> he physicalness of the absolute reality).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> 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 everyth...@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 everyth...@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
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/af4d2e45-79e5-4b4d-8e82-fb19fa3d339b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: "Proof" of time-energy form of HUP -- anything awry here?

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 10:21:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 5:36:34 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 7:51:49 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=time-energy+uncertainty+principle+derivation=1C1CHBF_enUS878US878=isch=iu=1=PjREgSqrhN_VwM%253A%252CzJ-juHz9_B7uxM%252C_=1=AI4_-kSgX8i7G1G5mvD-eKkPmWv9XPhMmg=X=2ahUKEwjKqtvSnJfpAhWabc0KHTWPC7IQ_h0wAHoECAYQBA#imgrc=JW1KwbviSVmcFM
>>>
>>
>> Clark, let me help. This "proof" has a fatal flaw. Do you know what it 
>> is? AG 
>>
>
> It's the fifth proof to the right in row 1. AG 
>

Clark; when you understand what's wrong with the derivation, you will gain 
significant understanding of the proper interpretation of the UP. But maybe 
you're not interested. 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/cb7806d5-4cf8-452d-8e93-0d9330facfb4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
>> mailto: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... 
>> 
> 
> 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

OK.



> and AI will not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness. 

Once you invoke AI or mechanism, the deep explanation will have to reduce 
physics to some mathematics (indeed to G* intensional variant). Or it brings 
magical ontological commitment just to hide ignorance, and that is bad 
religion/philosophy.



> And it still won't "explain" quale,

Where Mechanism does.




> 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.

Even the AI will not been convinced by this. The élan vitale does not explain 
one thing. The qualia are just unavoidable data, which, when we suppose 
mechanism are easier to explain, and indeed already explains the existence of 
quanta as first person sharable qualia. 

Mechanism explains, in a coherent and testable way, why we feel like if there 
was a material reality, and a mental reality. Adding a magical primitive matter 
makes that explanation no more working, so why to add it?

The goal is not to replaced physics by some better predictive science, except 
for the afterlife problem, where, with some exception like Tipler, is not part 
of the physical inquiry, but of metaphysics, and the point is that with 
mechanism, any Aristotelian theories cannot 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 19:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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…


It is the reduction of the problem “why is there a moon, where does atoms come 
from?”, but also “why does it hurts” to the problem of justifying the physical 
laws from pure arithmetic.






> much less how you have solved it. 

I can help if you tell me at which points you don’t understand, without 
invoking your ontological commitment, of course.





> William S. Cooper has a good explanation from evolution.


Evolution explain the origin of brain, and of the human mind. If you like that 
explanation, you are in trouble, as Darwin’s theory of evolution assume 
Mechanism (it even force digital mechanism, and the finite encoding of 
biological information, which has been confirmed by molecular biology, which is 
the roots of my motivation for studying Mechanism, and mathematical logic, 
which discovered the digital version of mechanism).

But you might also be happy, as the theory of evolution is not refuted by 
mechanism, but extended to the origine of the physical laws, assuming only 
elementary arithmetic (x + 0 = x, etc.).




> 
>> 
>> 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.

It is not my theory. It is the theory of all universal machine “riche enough to 
believe in the arithmetical induction axiom (that is their own behaviour”.

Up to now, it is confirmed by nature, where physicalism is simply refuted or 
needs some string non-mechanist axiom.



> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.

It does not. You need a solution of the mind-body problem to solve the 
anaesthesia working problem. Chemistry just allow us to infer many useful 
things, but to stop there and simps the “hard problem” is just like the 
instrumentalist “shut up and calculate”.



>   And the explanation is based on the theory that consciousness in produced 
> by the brain


OK. But how? Certainly not in a Turing emulable way. A god (personal or 
impersonal) cannot be invoked in an explanation, at east with Mechanism. How 
could such a god select the conscious computations in arithmetic. If that is 
possible, then digital machines are zombies, and Digital Mechanism has to be 
abandoned. 



> and depends on the diffusion of hormones across synaptic gaps.


Contingently. That is like saying that deep blue win the hess game thanks to 
the laws of Ohm, Faraday, which we know to be non relevant (Deep Blue would 
have win also when implemented with Babbage clock-wheel type of machine, or in 
arithmetic, etc.).




> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia?  Drunkeness?  Does it explain the 
>>> evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 16:39, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "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
>  
> 

Brain smith theory is basically the same theory as the theory of Gödel’s 
beweisbar (he is aware of this).

But he missed the platonic nuances, which I explained either through tough 
experiment, or using the greek definitions (as they anticipated all this 
through the “dream argument”t).

The platonic nuances are imposed by incompleteness. Although it is true 
(provable in G*) that []p, []p & p, ..; are all equivalent (see the same 
portion of the arithmetical reality), the machine cannot see those equivalence, 
and from the machine’s point of view, they are not equivalent, and indeed less 
to a different logic and mathematics for each one of those. []p obeys a logic 
of credibility, []p & p obeys a (intuitionist) logic of knowledge, []p & <>p 
obeys a quantum logic, []p & <>t & p obeys a quantum institionist logic, at the 
G* level.

All this are theorem in arithmetic, and obtained by any arithmetically sound 
universal machine numbers. 

Some people missed that all computation are emulated (semantically) in all 
models of elementary arithmetic. We know that since the 1930s.

Bruno



> 
> @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
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 15:00, 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?

Yes. Consciousness cannot be an illusion, as a genuine illusion needs 
consciousness. LC’s remark does not makes sense. It looks like the usual 
physicalist attempt to put the mind-body problem under the rug.

With mechanism, it is the PRIMITIVE physical universe which is an illusion, and 
up to now, that illusion is explained by the number relation, except for our 
belief in numbers, which is still completely explained as being necessarily not 
explainable from less (or equivalent). That is why I claim that mechanism does 
solve the mind body problem, where adding infinities in the physical world just 
suggest a non mechanist theory of mind, which add difficulties without reason.

There are no evidence for a primitive physical universe. There strong evidence 
for the existence of a physical universe or physical reality, but no evidence 
for its pirmaryness, as the antic greek understood very well, when inventing 
Mathematics (a mathematician was a pholospher skeptic about he physicalness of 
the absolute reality).

Bruno



> 
> 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
>  
> .

-- 
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/6AAB4946-3BA5-4D5A-B9C1-149412423D09%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 15:27, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
> mailto: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… 

Yes, LC’s comment  is self-refuting. 

Bruno



> 
> 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
>  
> .

-- 
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/AFA0BAE8-C28F-45A0-9E8C-33DC70ABDE2F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: EinsteinPy

[Philip Thrift]

*A beginners guide to using Python for performance computing*
https://scipy-cookbook.readthedocs.io/items/PerformancePython.html

*JIT fast! Supercharge tensor processing in Python with JIT compilation*
https://medium.com/starschema-blog/jit-fast-supercharge-tensor-processing-in-python-with-jit-compilation-47598de6ee96

...

@philipthrift



On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 3:47:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> Isn't Python too slow for such simulation work? 
>
> On 05-05-2020 03:25, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > Yes - Python is the duck's nuts right now. I want to switch TCL out for 
> > Python in my EcoLab platform, which I use for ALife research. It'll 
> > probably have a to wait a few years until I "retire", though, and I 
> > hope that the scientific community hasn't jumped on another 
> > bandwagon by that time :). 
> > 
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:02:23PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 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 everyth...@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.
>  
>
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
>  
>
> > Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> > Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> >   http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> > 
>  
>
>
>
> 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/8f753b19-6c5c-4c01-bf1a-682b124e3ec3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What does "physical" mean?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 18:43, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 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”.

Unfortunately that is based on the Aristotelian philosophy, which is 
incompatible with mechanism. The “stuff”, with mechanism, is explained in term 
of statistics on computations (which requires much less ontological commitment 
than any sort of primary stuff that nobody can see, as “seeing” require 
interaction).

Physicist measure numbers and infer relation between measurable numbers. The 3p 
physical, that is those sharable number relations,  is the object study of 
physics. “Physical” admits also a first person sense, like with “ a physical 
sensation”, which brings the mind-body problem, where, as the platonism 
philosophers understood, makes highly dubious that the physical can be used to 
understand the metaphysical, needed to justify the existence of the (appearance 
of) stuff.

The use of stuff in metaphysics is only slightly less naive, and as much 
invalid, than the use of “god” as an explanation in philosophy. 

The god of the greek theologian (not of the greek myth and legend) is only the 
god of monism: the idea that there are first principle explaining everything. 
That is at the root of modern physics, but with the mind-body problem, we can 
guess that physics cannot be the fundamental science. With mechanism, 
Darwinism’s spirit is extended to the original and logical development of the 
physical laws from arithmetic. Up to now, the observation of nature confirm 
mechanism, and disprove materialism.

This is hard to swallow for dogmatic materialist, as many still exist in our 
Aristotelian (weak materialist) era. People confuse the serious evidence for a 
physical reality with evidences that the physical reality is primary, but that 
is simple category error, facilitate by the fact that theology and thus 
philosophy (which is just theology without a notion of God) are separated from 
science.

The difference between science and bad theology/philosophy, is that in science, 
we never abandon a concept of an idea, but change the theories and definitions 
when we get contradiction. We don’t say “Earth do not exist” when we learn that 
“Earth is not flat”, or” not supported by infinities of turtles”, or "not at 
the center of the universe”: we just change our views.

Mechanism reduce both mind and matter to only one mystery: our understanding of 
natural number, but it explains why this mystery is absolutely unsolvable. That 
explanation of mind and matter is constructive, making the theology of the 
universal machine both a pure branch of mathematics (even of arithmetic) and a 
testable experimental subbranch of physics.

In that Mechanist frame, the 3p physical is given by the “theory of quanta” 
obtained from the theory of the observable (defined with the intensional 
variant of G and G*), and the difference between G and G* (and the 
corresponding intentional variant) makes precise the difference between the 
sharable and measurable quanta, and the non sharable, but still experienceable 
qualia, which gives the 1p physical qualia. Qualia obeys a quantum logic which 
extends the logic of quanta, corroborating the fact that with mechanism, all 
the physicalness is obtained as a first person plural reality. 

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

Re: EinsteinPy

[smitra]

Isn't Python too slow for such simulation work?

On 05-05-2020 03:25, Russell Standish wrote:

Yes - Python is the duck's nuts right now. I want to switch TCL out for
Python in my EcoLab platform, which I use for ALife research. It'll
probably have a to wait a few years until I "retire", though, and I
hope that the scientific community hasn't jumped on another
bandwagon by that time :).

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:02:23PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote:



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.



--


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au




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/64642dd6e2c7aa2efe88e3727cdf20e8%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[smitra]

On 04-05-2020 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'?  Does it
explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious?  Does it
explain how anesthesia works?  Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia? 
Drunkeness?  Does it explain the evocation of memories by
electrostimulation of the brain?  Dementia?  Childhood amnesia?

Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X, so by
rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.

Brent


Physics has left these issues well behind. Finding evidence for 
supersymmetry, the nature of dark matter, evidence for proton decay will 
not shed much light on what the subjective experience of experiencing 
pain exactly is. This strongly suggests that physics as applied to 
everyday phenomena is (almost) exactly correct from a mathematical point 
of view, but that there is an issue with the explanation of the 
phenomena. One then cannot test any alternative explanation as this will 
have to reduce to the same mathematical theory when used to predict the 
outcome of experiments.


I.m.o., the best place to start is by taking physics itself seriously 
and not throw parts of it away on the grounds that FAPP certain things 
at the macro-level work like certain classical models and that therefore 
a, say, human being is exactly what these effective laws describe.


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/07c36ba203b8f20fc2197575b47cce92%40zonnet.nl.