Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 2:59:30 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
> I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might 
> have to send me the paper with this development.
>
>
> I will do that.
>
>
>
> The equation between quantum states and units of information is through 
> the von Neumann quantum entropy and its parallel with Shannon;s formula. 
> Transitions between states by interactions are then in a way modeled as a 
> sort of computation or algorithmic-like process. I am not particularly 
> given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though.
>
>
>
Thanks for these references. I have a bit of a queue of papers yet to read.

LC

 

>
> Mechanism makes this impossible. The physical universe is an emerging, in 
> the mind of the universal machine, of a *non* computable first person 
> (plural) pattern.
>
> At each instant (indexical computational step) you have an infinity of 
> computations (arithmetical concept) going through you state. To predict any 
> first person experience (like seing a the position of a needle on some 
> device), you need “in principle” to look at all computations going through 
> that state, and that can be shown to be not computable a priori.
>
> A slogan could be: IF I am a machine, then what I am not is NOT a machine. 
>
> Most attributes of a machine (even non universal) are not 
> computable/decidable. Already, the set of programs computing any functions 
> is not a decidable set (Rice theorem), and no person-machine can know which 
> machine support her, or which computations access her.
> (This is easy to prove, but is also rather obvious if you thing to program 
> factorial using some partially undecided subroutine).
>
> I will send you paper soon. Meanwhile, you can consult my sane04 summary 
> papers, 
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
>
> and if your institution follows some journal, you might get them from 
> herebelow:
>
> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. 
> Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157
>
> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993
>
> B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th 
> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, 
> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>  (sane04)
>
> Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
> Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, 
> Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., 
> Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, 
> Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. 
> Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
> (http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf)
>
> Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in 
> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132
>
> Marchal B.  Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, 
> Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
> (available at http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/)
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/b8925f1f-c814-465c-a589-00b72395109fn%40googlegroups.com.

Deep Molecular Programming

[Philip Thrift]

*Deep Molecular Programming*
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13720

"Embedding computation in molecular contexts incompatible with traditional 
electronics is expected to have wide ranging impact in synthetic biology, 
medicine, nanofabrication and other fields. ..."

via http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~soloveichik/

(So in the future there will be REPLs [ https://repl.it/ ] that poop out 
molecular structures instead of numbers.)

@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/5ad864bc-5e6c-4d48-b264-52df696a0c12n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:05, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 1:05:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:41, PGC > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many? You're joking right? You can have a ton of references to PrEP, PEP, or 
>> alternatively conceived and designed type studies and it's everybody's right 
>> to believe in them and to take that medication if they wish. If folks want 
>> to confuse quantity with quality, that's their choice. 
>> 
>> It's you guys that are following references/names without a guiding 
>> principle/standard as you'll accept anything that goes in your discursive 
>> direction, with Christian "if they lied to us, then they are liars" type 
>> judgements embedded in the assumptions of your statements. What does that 
>> ever indicate?
>> 
>> I'll side with the more cautious and qualitative notion of effective in 
>> terms of well designed, large randomized controlled clinical trials. It's 
>> you guys that are following references/names without a guiding 
>> principle/standard as you'll accept anything that goes in your discursive 
>> direction. PGC
> 
> 
> That makes sense for academic research, but the real-life doctors cannot way 
> for an academical response in urgent situation, and that is the context of 
> the HCQ/remdesevir domain, where many argument against the work of Didier 
> Raoult was nothing by a sort of harassment, not by its peers, but by media,
> 
> Again, you do not appear aware of current events: Since about 2 weeks Raoult 
> is suing Martin Hirsch for "dénonciation calomnieuse". 
> 
> Apparently, some of his peers in France do not share his views. His 
> supporters will see this as vindication and proof of systemic corruption of 
> the medical profession in France and the world, while his peers, that view 
> his claims with skepticism, see it differently.   

I am unable to interpret this. French politics is stacked in between the Muslim 
Brotherhood (ignored by the left in America, but those are authentic nazi, 
since 1942) and “big-pharma” (which controls a lot in some European countries, 
like Belgium and France).



>  
> a bit with the argument “Trump said it so it has to be false”. That argument 
> certainly makes some sense, but is not conclusive, especially when the 
> opponents (the FDA) has a tradition of lies in the domain.
> 
> Any system finds itself in a constant flux either towards or away from truth. 
> All human systems or organizations, defined as a collection of persons 
> performing some discreet function that distinguishes itself from the broader 
> environment, are therefore liars by default.

Being wrong does not mean being lying. If a sincere “flatist” says that Earth 
is not flat, he is lying, despite saying the truth.
Lying is just saying the contrary of our own belief with the intent to 
manipulate some other.




> Would everybody be in a better position because they judged their governments 
> as corrupt, thereby refusing to use streets, roads, infrastructure, water, 
> food, internet, and health services on the basis of past discrepancies with 
> truth?
> 
> The establishment of doubt as an absolute scientific principle appears 
> simplistic to me. Doubt is but of one of many instruments to arrive at what 
> is constitutive for science: analysis that aspires to objectivity and 
> unbiased evaluation of issues to explain, describe, and, when necessary, to 
> judge them. Critical scientific thinking is more than just an absolutized 
> notion of uncertainty. Particularly in some emergency situation, pure 
> uncertainty leads to lack of any judgement or decision to act. Worse, when it 
> is applied simplistically in some crisis, it delegitimizes everybody as 
> disinformation (which can perfectly be disguised as doubt, as it often is) 
> tends to do. PGC

There is no need to abslotise doubt. I insist on doubt only because 1500 years 
of separation of theology and science makes some people believe that science = 
truth (when science = doubt) and that religion is necessary bs, which does not 
need to be the case, as everyone has a religion when the term is used in the 
platonic sense. Doubt is important, as public certainly is close to madness, 
more so in the fundament ontology problems.

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4102aca1-8480-45ec-9b02-ff35be68ae1do%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

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

Re: Sharpiegate

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 19:24, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:00 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> 
> I have no opinion at all on this.  Trump is a liar, but unfortunately, in the 
> Health domain, there is a tradition of lies. It is even normal, once you 
> tolerate making money on health/disease: a cured patient is a client lost. 
> One of my student has been hired by a pharmaceutical company to develop AI 
> tools to hide better the secondary effects in the notice of the medication, 
> in a way such that it looks legal, and this for different countries. 
> 
> 
> I learned recently that in China, people pay their doctors for each month 
> they are healthy, and pay nothing when they are sick:
> 
> https://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_weird_or_just_different?language=en 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is a better model.

It is certainly worth consideration, but I can imagine this being misused too, 
doubly so in a non democratic state.

Here, I do believe in some repression, and money based on lies should be 
punished, and stopped immediately. But once the bandits are in power, that can 
take time…

Bruno



> 
> Jason 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgLGCFqdi3OsoSK1nW_%3D3GQ0RcuJ2bGfDJYTq66niFGmw%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/BBD13D4D-2911-4CA2-BDAE-0B62F2160162%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 13:44, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 7:13 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > The “consensus” argument makes local sense in practice, by default. But it 
> > is not part of science, 
> 
> No. Science could never work without a web of trust, that's why science 
> journals exist and why some are more respected than others. A scientist 
> builds on the accomplishments of previous scientists, without that there 
> would be no foundation, they would have to reinvent the wheel every day and 
> start out at square one. Science would never get anywhere


No problem with this. My point was just that the argument “everybody nearby 
believes this” is not a valid argument.
In practice we need trust in the work of others, but eventually, every now and 
then, someone comes with a new idea (like relativity, quantum mechanics) or new 
interpretation or cromprehesnion of old ideas (like with Mechanism which 
resurrect somehow Plato (against Aristotle) in metaphysics.


> 
> > marijuana 
> 
> I don't know why you keep talking about marijuana. For decades the scientific 
> consensus has been that for recreational use marijuana is not harmful, or at 
> least it's far far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and for some medical 
> conditions marijuana is actually beneficial.

Yes. We know this since 5000 years actually, according to Chinese scientists.



> But the politicians and right wing pundits don't care about science or logic 
> and they have more power than scientists. Much more.


Indeed. That’s part of the problem. It is not the politicians, but the 
corrupted one. I heard that more than 95% of the benefits of illegal drug 
dealing is invest in the perpetuation of the prohibition, despite we know today 
that the problem of drugs comes only from its prohibition, or from indecent 
posologie. Recently the doctors got an incentive by “big-pharma” to double the 
dose of opiates, and this has led to the “opioïd crisis”.

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/CAJPayv1xvL4R-2bSYbU%2BszQpfdq%3Dd_dsF2mYFhf5WtiJzuxKXA%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/71C7CDF7-D47E-40DD-8CCD-023C9F3B4CD0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Aug 2020, at 00:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/10/2020 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> How could a derivation of physics have nothing to do with physics? You are 
>> right, physics describes some reality through number relation (like F = ma,  
>> F = GmM/r^2, …), but with Mechanism, those physical (ov-bservable, locally 
>> predictable) number relations must be explained in a sort of Darwinian way 
>> from the “number”s dream” (which we know to be all realised in arithmetic).
> 
> A precis of an "everything" theory.  What we observe must be as predicted by 
> the theory (otherwise it's invalidated). And the theory predicts everything 
> (therefore it's useless, but can't be invalidated).

The theory (the physics derived from machine’s introspection) does not predict 
everything. It already rules out all classical physics, and predict a quantum 
physics with “many-histories”, and a non standard quantum statistics. It 
suggests a symmetrical important reversible core. So, on the contrary, it 
predicts something completely specific, but with a multiverse sort of shape. 
What we observed is exactly what is predicted, until now. 

Of course to do physics with the machine physics would be like to do a pizza 
using superstring theory. The goal is not a goal in physical science, but to 
get a theory of consciousness (and everything) compatible with the 
observations. 

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/ecc34e54-0b0f-83e6-8795-833ed79e78a7%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/EFDA8F73-1478-4C03-B524-42E88B413EE5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:54, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:44:59 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:35, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects and 
>> events.
> 
> 
> I think science is more general than that. When you do metaphysics with the 
> scientific method, it might be better to not postulate objects and events, as 
> this seems to presuppose already Aristotelian theology.
> 
> Np need to military science. Science can study anything, propose theories 
> about anything, as long as it gives mans of testing the theories, and 
> evaluating their benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer science that is 
>> fine, but it in of itself does not give physics.
> 
> 
> Have you read my papers? I can prove that IF we assume Mechanism, then 
> physics has to be justified entirely by the machine theology (by which I mean 
> the study of the intensional variant of Solovay’s logic G*, as I have 
> explained sometimes).
> 
> 
> 
> I remember reading something of yours a couple of years ago. You might have 
> to send me the paper with this development.

I will do that.


> 
> The equation between quantum states and units of information is through the 
> von Neumann quantum entropy and its parallel with Shannon;s formula. 
> Transitions between states by interactions are then in a way modeled as a 
> sort of computation or algorithmic-like process. I am not particularly given 
> to the idea the universe is an algorithm though.


Mechanism makes this impossible. The physical universe is an emerging, in the 
mind of the universal machine, of a *non* computable first person (plural) 
pattern.

At each instant (indexical computational step) you have an infinity of 
computations (arithmetical concept) going through you state. To predict any 
first person experience (like seing a the position of a needle on some device), 
you need “in principle” to look at all computations going through that state, 
and that can be shown to be not computable a priori.

A slogan could be: IF I am a machine, then what I am not is NOT a machine. 

Most attributes of a machine (even non universal) are not computable/decidable. 
Already, the set of programs computing any functions is not a decidable set 
(Rice theorem), and no person-machine can know which machine support her, or 
which computations access her.
(This is easy to prove, but is also rather obvious if you thing to program 
factorial using some partially undecided subroutine).

I will send you paper soon. Meanwhile, you can consult my sane04 summary 
papers, 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 



and if your institution follows some journal, you might get them from herebelow:

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

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

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of 
Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi 
A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on 
Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di 
Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
(http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf 
)

Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics 
and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132

Marchal B.  Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo 
Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
(available at http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/)





> 
> LC
>  
> 
> 
>> Feynman made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
>> interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
>> activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a 
>> sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to 
>> reality.
> 
> Like brain and universal machine. Yes, they dream a lot, but from their own 
> perspective, they belong to infinities of computations, and that is what we 
> observe below pur 

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:25, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 5:15:55 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:19, Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
>>  
>> 
>>  :
>> 
>> Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?
>> A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they share 
>> a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since spacelike-locality 
>> is not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it is possible for 
>> these states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected in the multiway 
>> causal graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is the essence of 
>> quantum entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the context of Bell’s 
>> theorem.
>> 
>> 
> 
> If that graph structure is the correct explanation of the entanglement, that 
> graphe structure must be justified bt the observable-mode of self-reference, 
> to be able to distinguish what is quanta and what is qualia.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> I indicated in the above message on Aug 6, 2020, 1:04:48 PM (4 days ago) how 
> these graphs might pertain to entanglements. This appears somewhat 
> communsurate with what Wolfram is saying. 
> 
> I am not terribly worried about qualia, and at this time tend to shy away 
> from invoking consciousness in QM.


Where we assume Mechanism/computationalism (i.e.Descartes made mathematically 
precise through Turing), the quantum is explained from a theory of 
consciousness. It is the other way around than those who try to explain 
Consciousness from the quantum.

Actually, I found the MW by myself exclusively from mechanism (and amoeba’s 
observation), but at that time, I thought that I was refuting computationalism. 
It took me to discover Everett’s paper to realise that the physicists did 
already suspect that the physical reality might be multiple (which is just 
obvious with mechanism as long as you are OK that 2+2=4: that is already proved 
implicitly in Gödel 1931 paper).

Here, all you need is the characterisation of consciousness as something true, 
indubitable, immediately knowable, non provable and non definable (without 
invoking the notion of “truth”).

With this, all introspective machine discover “consciousness”, and the (unique 
precise physics) which go with it, and thank to the QM-MWI, we got striking 
confirmation of that physics. It took me 30 years more to get the quantum 
logic, and normally it is a “type 0” à-la von Neumann quantum logic, from which 
a unique measure and integral must be derived.

Physics becomes a subbranch of the theology/psychology of the universal Turing 
machine/number.

Now, this physics has no reason to replace the empirical physics, but its 
advantage is that it explain the quanta, the qualia, and their relation. It 
shows also that in theology or metaphysics, we need to come back to Plato type 
of theology. The Aristotelian are recovered as local approximation.

Bruno





> 
> LC
> 
>  
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with anything 
>> is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is 
>> this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N 
>> entanglements.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, It 
>> is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
>> programmer's manual.
>> 
>> Wolfram Physics Project Functions
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page 
>> 
>> 
>> Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>> 
>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
>> be written as programs in this library/language.
>> 
>> @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/324c39f9-6bd4-42da-bcb4-bc01c6091c9en%40googlegroups.com
>  
>