Re: Consciousness research

[Alina Gutoreva]

Any serious text would benefit from silly images 
.

Grateful, 
Ally

P.S. Feminism is good for you.



> On 7 Nov 2021, at 02:42, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> No, no, JC, you are. We are just grateful to be part of your solipsism. 
> assuming that is that I'm not the only conscious being in the universe, and I 
> rather doubt that I am.  
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2021 7:19 am
> Subject: Re: Consciousness research
> 
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 6:09 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> > I doubt quantum gravitation and consciousness have much to do with each 
> > other.
> 
> I could not agree with you more! About the only thing quantum gravity and 
> consciousness have in common is that they're both somewhat mysterious. The 
> biggest difference between the two is that the human race has made enormous 
> progress in understanding gravity over the centuries but precisely zero 
> progress in understanding consciousness. My hunch for the reason for that is 
> that there is simply nothing to understand; it's just a brute fact that 
> consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. 
> That would explain why Darwinian Evolution (random mutation plus natural 
> selection) bothered to make something conscious in the first place, because 
> although evolution can't see consciousness it can see intelligent behavior. 
> That's why I'm conscious, and that's probably why you're conscious too; 
> assuming that is that I'm not the only conscious being in the universe, and I 
> rather doubt that I am.  
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> grx
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv3FSc1setV2XFq2vz2Nx3iavtqW0LJGmDWyijHtCY2G5w%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/1162829785.830383.1636252957345%40mail.yahoo.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BD709F1C-C88A-44AD-B7ED-82F1A9F7FDF8%40gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

[Alina Gutoreva]

What if we include information processing (e.g., information gathering, 
decision-making, communication, noise) into the equation? We all are kind of 
split in terms of information.

(considering to research quantum decision-making, so please let me know if it’s 
a bad idea)

Ally


> On 19 Jan 2021, at 13:03, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:48 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> 
>  And if Many Worlds is correct then there is an Alan Grayson for every 
>  horse in that race, and there is an Alan Grayson who saw every one of 
>  those horses win.  And if Many Worlds is not correct then something even 
>  stranger must be. The one thing we know for certain is that whatever 
>  quantum interpretation turns out to be true it's going to be weird, very 
>  very weird. 
> 
> >>> Obviously, a horse race isn't a quantum process,
> 
> >>You say it's obvious that you don't split because you'd feel it if you did,
> 
> > I never made that claim. But which split are you referring to?
> 
> You're asking me?! Which of the 5.39 * 10^44 splits that happen every second 
> are YOU referring to? 
> 
> > you guys have no clue what world your resident in
> 
> Yes, and that's why we can't make exact predictions, and that's why the 
> quantum world behaves so strangely. 
> 
> 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/CAJPayv2SPEEE56BoOVDwVn5Mt8LWECyUT5gHTr-zjLiZ8%3D_DkQ%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/1FA97335-80AA-4BCA-84B9-C1B2F647A0BA%40gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

[Alina Gutoreva]

"Before an idea is told, it’s never been true 
?”-kind
 of idea OR “levels ”-kind of idea? Or both 
? I’m confused.

Please, don’t be angry.

Ally
 

> On 15 Jan 2021, at 22:34, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? Or why not 
> withhold judgement on a phenomenon not yet understood? Instead you totally 
> dismiss empirical evidence that no one ever observes a split. AG
> 
> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> 
> > Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial when 
> > it's not observed? AG 
> 
> For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the least 
> bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the utterly bizarre 
> results observed from the two slit experiment. There is just no getting 
> around it, if Many Worlds isn't true then something even stranger must be. 
> 
> 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/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%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/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Alina Gutoreva]

I think this is the time when I would like to ACTUALLY understand what you are 
talking about...

I think this is important, but you lost me on nimimi:
> N!/M!*M!

Would appreciate any examples from personal-life-perspecitve too!



> On 9 Mar 2020, at 22:08, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM Russell Standish  > wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 10:10:23PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > 
> > > > In order to infer a probability of p = 0.5, your branch data 
> > must
> > have
> > > > approximately equal numbers of zeros and ones. The number of
> > branches
> > > with
> > > > equal numbers of zeros and ones is given by the binomial
> > coefficient. For
> > > large
> > > > even N = 2M trials, this coefficient is N!/M!*M!. Using the
> > Stirling
> > > > approximation to the factorial for large N, this goes as 
> > 2^N/sqrt
> > (N)
> > > (within
> > > > factors of order one). Since there are 2^N sequences, the
> > proportion with
> > > n_0 =
> > > > n_1 vanishes as 1/sqrt(N) for N large.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This is the nub of the proof you wanted.
> 
> No - it is simply irrelevant. The statement I made was about the
> proportion of strings whose bit ratio lies within certain percentage
> of the expected value.
> 
> After all when making a measurement, you are are interested in the
> value and its error bounds, eg 10mm +/- 0.1%, or 10mm +/- 0.01mm. We
> can never know its exact value.
> 
> 
> If you are using experimental data to estimate a quantity (and a p value is a 
> quantity in the required sense), then you are interested in the confidence 
> interval, not an absolute or percentage error. And the confidence interval 
> for a given probability of including the true value decreases with the number 
> of trials (since the standard error decreases with N).
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQZ6-y7W70ZDRDEqbcVY2agyrAB8SpovtgfiHMGQxDMqA%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/76F1634F-6B3B-40C8-A460-FA6EC139E599%40gmail.com.