Re: Observation versus assumption
Isn’t determination of consciousness relational? Is the water “hot”? There is no way of knowing without another different temperature water. Is John Clark conscious? There is no way of knowing without another different level of consciousness. On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:07 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 1:09 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *> “Digital machine” is just an expression referring to the kind of >> machine defining Universal system. They are finite mathematical object.* >> > > If it's a mathematical object then it's not a machine because machines > change and mathematics doesn't. > > *> Finite object can be identified with their Gödel numbers without >> problem.* > > > Identified by who? Identified by brains made of matter that obey the laws > of physics that are inside the heads of mathematicians. > > >> You postulate physics every time you wish to get to the outer side but >> refuse to step off the curb into the street if you judge that a physical >> car moving at its current physical speed will intersect with your physical >> body before you have time to get to the other side. And you are not the >> only one, for the last 500 million years without exception every single one >> of your ancestors has postulated physics or you wouldn't be here today; I'm >> sure some animals ignored physics but they left no descendants. >> > > > >> *> Where is the physical assumption in the theory, which I recall can be >> put in the form:* >>> >>> >> *1) If A = B and A = C, then B = C* >>> >>> >> *2) If A = B then AC = BC* >>> >>> >> *3) If A = B then CA = CB* >>> >>> >> *4) KAB = A* >>> >>> >> *5) SABC = AC(BC)I do not use any other assumption.* > > > I don't see any physics in the above either, that's why it can't change > and if it can't change it can't compute. > > *> You can also assume classical logic +* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *1) 0 ≠ s(x)2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 4) x+0 = x5) >> x+s(y) = s(x+y)6) x*0=07) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x* >> > > Those squiggles are slightly different but I still don't see any physics > in them, and so it still can't change and it still can't compute. > > *> In English:* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *1) 0 is not the successor of a number2) Different numbers have different >> successors3) Except for 0, all numbers have a predecessor4) If you add zero >> to a number, you get that number5) If you add a number x to the successor >> of a number y, you get the successor of x added to y6) If you multiply a >> number by 0, you get 07) If you multiply a number x by the successor of y, >> you get the number x added to the multiplication of the number x with y* >> As everyone can see, there is no physical assumption. >> > > And as everyone can see there is no computation in the above without "you" > to actually *do* things, and "you" is made of matter that obeys the laws of > physics. > > >> >> People observed that whenever they added two physical things to two >> more physical things they always got a invariant quantity, four physical >> things. People then used inductive reasoning to conclude this would always >> be true even when they are not observed, and at least until the discovery >> of quantum mechanics this has all worked out fine. But if you wait long >> enough induction will always let you down. >> >> *> Let us use “inductive inference” in place of “induction” to avoid a >> confusion between mathematical induction and inductive inference.* >> > > Why use different words when it's the same thing? Induction just says that > things usually continue and animals have been making very good use of that > fact for at least 500 million years. For a few hundred years mathematicians > have been using induction to generalize things by saying if they can prove > that something is true for integer n and if they can also prove its true > for integer n+1 then they have proven it is true for ANY integer larger > than n. And that line of reasoning all seems to work very well; but > Bertrand Russell, a man who knew a thing or two about mathematical logic > and induction said: > > *“The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last > wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the > uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken."* > > Mathematicians say that if n is prime then n+1 can not be prime because it > is divisible by 2, however if n+1 is a lot larger than 10^100^100^100 then > the entire multiverse may lack the computational resources needed to divide > n+1 by 2 or by any other number. So if n+1 can't be divided by any integer > then by definition both n and n+1 are prime. > > >> >> A theory must fit the facts and it's easy to do that with >> consciousness because there are no facts about it to fit except that I John >> Clark am conscious. >> >> > *But there is an infinity of John Clark in arithmetic, * >> > > An infinity? There may or may not be an infinity of John Clarks in the > Multiverse but there is not even one
Re: Does (did) 1980 exist?
So, in other words, we can only know the fragment of reality as transmitted through our senses into our perceived memories - which may explain why everyone has a different perspective about reality - they only know their piece of the mosaic - the whole picture of reality only becomes clearer as we begin to share and piece together our fragments On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:21 PM J O wrote: > perhaps 1980 still exists - but only as a fragmented ‘state’ - where all > the fragmented perspectives of everyone who lived then reside in a > separated state of reality in each persons memory. A mosaic of time > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/8/2019 10:33 PM, smitra wrote: >> > I remember the year 1980, but what I remember is due to brain >> > processes that exist right now. I can only ever probe the present >> > moment, there is no way to prove that 1980 physically exists or >> > existed (whatever the past tense is supposed to mean). So, if 1980 >> > exists (existed) it must be considered to be a parallel world where >> > the people in our memory of that time really exist (existed). The time >> > evolution operator from that time to the present can be expanded in a >> > basis where complete sets of commuting local observables are diagonal. >> > One of the simultaneous eigenstates is the present world we find >> > ourselves in. So, if we assume that 1980 is indeed real and the >> > present world which is one particular component of that same 1980 >> > state written in a different basis, then it's plausible that all the >> > other MWI parallel worlds of 2019 are equally real. >> >> Or to recap. There's a world which we believe is real because we >> remember it and find consistent evidence of it today. Therefore we >> should believe in the existence of worlds for which we have no evidence >> or memories. >> >> 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/3e40cede-c108-402c-7d3f-cd25c8f8a29d%40verizon.net >> . >> > -- > Jennifer O'Bryon > 70 North Main Street > Bryant Pond, Maine 04219 > 207-418-2496 > > -- Jennifer O'Bryon 70 North Main Street Bryant Pond, Maine 04219 207-418-2496 -- 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/CAAgt4%2BE1qryFf%3DOWoVGaQ8XvsJW9muKEPtnuj_Lk5ACMST4i5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: Does (did) 1980 exist?
perhaps 1980 still exists - but only as a fragmented ‘state’ - where all the fragmented perspectives of everyone who lived then reside in a separated state of reality in each persons memory. A mosaic of time On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/8/2019 10:33 PM, smitra wrote: > > I remember the year 1980, but what I remember is due to brain > > processes that exist right now. I can only ever probe the present > > moment, there is no way to prove that 1980 physically exists or > > existed (whatever the past tense is supposed to mean). So, if 1980 > > exists (existed) it must be considered to be a parallel world where > > the people in our memory of that time really exist (existed). The time > > evolution operator from that time to the present can be expanded in a > > basis where complete sets of commuting local observables are diagonal. > > One of the simultaneous eigenstates is the present world we find > > ourselves in. So, if we assume that 1980 is indeed real and the > > present world which is one particular component of that same 1980 > > state written in a different basis, then it's plausible that all the > > other MWI parallel worlds of 2019 are equally real. > > Or to recap. There's a world which we believe is real because we > remember it and find consistent evidence of it today. Therefore we > should believe in the existence of worlds for which we have no evidence > or memories. > > 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/3e40cede-c108-402c-7d3f-cd25c8f8a29d%40verizon.net > . > -- Jennifer O'Bryon 70 North Main Street Bryant Pond, Maine 04219 207-418-2496 -- 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/CAAgt4%2BGrW-v%3DkXB-4Y8s-w4z-55WqJZEhyGxcrROn1w%2BKWJnLg%40mail.gmail.com.
