Re: real A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:02:00 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 5:48 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: real A.I.
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
>
> > Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by climate skepticism. I'm nor skeptical 
> that the world is warmer now than it was a century ago. And I'm not 
> skeptical that human activity is responsible for at least part of that 
> warming.
>
In the hypothetical there worrying developments in some empirical reading, 
regarding a profoundly complex dynamical system (say, it was the most 
complex system in the known universe, and the only one of its kind, known. 
About which almost nothing was understood. 

What would be the enlightened, rational, productive steps humanity should 
collectively take? I think you think, just the same as I think and pretty 
much everyone else would think. We instruct  our scientists to massive 
ramp up all viable  types of of study, all things  hatever the variable 
was.  

By and large, that's exactly what scientists were told to do, resourced to 
do, and what they almost immediately kicked off down avenues to do. 

Here we are, about 25 years into the era of heavily backed climate 
study. put aside for a moment your scepticism. Let's just say, what if you 
were right in all your concerns. Would that mean science had failed in its 
duty these last 25 years? No because that's not a way to measure. Knowledge 
of the climate system, new fields, new mathematical approaches, 
new approaches to handing massive datasets, new methods for reinforcing 
substantial extensions and backfill of enabler fields like statistics. 
Climate was like, this vague cloud of abstraction 25 years ago. 
Climatologists have accumulated an enormous body of knowledge, skills, 
specialisms et. Enormous. 

Tell me something. I suppose from what you say that you read the narrative 
of the think-tank clusters, the lobbying outfits, activists, on the 
sceptical side. It's not unreasonable to characterize the way things are 
presented, and what is presented, the apparent use of science they project 
they are doing. For the last few years the guide strategy has been to seek 
to discredit Science  using the toolset used for doing that since time 
immemorial. While portraying themselves as the true champions of truth and 
science. 

Good influencers and activists adopted science like vocaboularly and 
presented arguments with sience-like referenecs at the bottom. 
They consistently they are the ones getting things right and being faithful 
to science. 

Do you entertain that this may be true, or at least partially true? ha

If you do, even a tiny bit, then tell me this: What have they created in 
the process of doing this, of enduring scientific and human value. What 
robust new knowledge have the contributed? Because climatologists 
have accomplished multiple revolutions. They pioneered Big Data because 
they had to work with huge datasets. They pioneered new breed simulation 
technology. On whole new levels. The organized skeptic front, produced. 
 nothing. Nothing. That's all you need to know.

  . But I am skeptical that climate warming is necessarily a bad thing. 

Who ever said global warming is a 'bad thing'. No one has said 
that. There are always winners and losers. Global warming will have some 
winners. And some losers. What those super-simulations are doing most, is 
what they they algorithmically do in the output of their highest frequency 
lowest scale subroutines. That's wholly about trying to get whatever we can 
get, of what the localized impacts will be.

You say you're not convinced it's  bad thing. Who knows. It's just that, as 
of now, all the very best efforts our scientists - a generation or two with 
a huge pile of accumulated knowledge - their very best efforts, with the 
very best solutions, that that we've been able to think of, for how to 
grapple with the most complex, mysterious dynamical system, in the 
universe. The only one of its kind, that we know. It's been an 
unprecedented scale of challenge 

The best they can do has the arrow of evidence all pointing the same way. 
Who knows, maybe they are wrong. That's always been the way, though. They 
represent the best we can do. And they are saying it's going to count as a 
major cost/negative. 

BUT you don't agree...you've got your own theory, your own research and 
body of knowledge perhaps. 

Aren't you the guy that was just over on the Relativity thread pouring 
scorn on those who enter the fray with little knowledge, yet reject the 
best science has been able to offer in that space? That was you. 

Isn't it a little ironic, that relativitya stable fields not connected 
with any time critical urgencies, you shoul

Re: Consciousness

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:38:20 AM UTC, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Well spuddy, I do not think they are lying. However, what aspect of his 
> talk involves the paranormal?
> Richard
>

 allow there's no paranormal aspect. What aspect, in your view, is 
Scientific? 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Friday, December 5, 2014 4:31:27 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR 
> *Subject:* Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
>
>  
>
> On 3 December 2014 at 17:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Liz, I am with you here that evolution and e=mc2 make for highly visible, 
> honey pots tempting all manner of oddball, legend-in-their-minds geniuses 
> (or the pious pompous religious sort for the league of Darwin haters). I 
> also agree that the tactic used is similar – spotting the overlooked flaw 
> etc. However, I do not see the reason or need to invoke anti-Semitism – in 
> Einstein’s case, as being the main driver. Sure some of his detractors are 
> driven by the racist impulse, controlling their illing minds, but most – in 
> my experience – seem to be ultimately harmless sorts, even if, often they 
> are obnoxious, socially retarded bores.
>
> Liz>>Yeah I may have overstated that. It was just a passing thought 
> really - I thought perhaps there was a subconscious element of that 
> involved, but if there IS any subconscious motive it may just be that some 
> people don't like seeing someone who's touted as being a genius when they 
> know they have the real answer.
>
>  
>
> No problem – was just observing that in my experience most of the 
> “theorists” claiming to have disproved GR were more driven by that 
> legend-in-their-mind bug that worms its way into illing brains.
>

For the vast majority what you say must be accurate. Though much the same 
must be true for the great majority of science/Einstein (or Darwin) 
supporters. The driver is the same immense intellectual challenges, 
and an 80/20 rule governing learning. Probably about half of the 'legend in 
mind' would be challengers on one side, or enthuisiastic supporters of 
science on the other learn only high level summary blocks. With practice 
such blocks can be assembled flexibly into roughly sensible statements. 
A minority have some years of formal and other learning of theory - this 
would include retired physicists without career specialism for the theory. 
Scientists & technicians in different fields of work. The 'occasional very 
well informed layperson. And so on. Their ceiling is roughy 80% insight. 

The 'outsider' legend-in-own-mind types gravitate the simpler higher level 
issues for the same reason the enthuisiastic science supporters do. The 
'outsider' disproves the mental structure painstakingly constructed by him. 
Sadly the prospects of that being Relativity or whatever are poor. Doesn't 
make him/her wrong; or due contempt for having a go. The same basic forces; 
the fact most of us peak out some where in the middle of the bell curve, 
while the source of break through physics is typically way over in 
the right hand tails (4th standard deviation is what is thought)  

The supporters focus that same high level 'summary' block (like lego) 
space.into dogmatic envisionings. The outsider brings his idea to 
the centre...and I would think emotionally painful disappointing process of 
dreams unfulfilled. His theory is attended for evaluation by, of course, 
the amateur insider fraternity. Some of those insiders are first class 
intellects. But it's just one of those things that evaluating outsider 
theories, furnishes a sense - shared - of status, and seasoning. Defacto, a 
sense of new status is experiencewhich is basically the right seeding 
for dogmatic positions to root. 

And that is alright. It's the same well motivated efforts given to a 
subject matter that is no doubt of real personal importance. And these are 
all rules of thumb not absolute rules. Very occasionally there is an 
amateur insider, that brings something a bit special to the evaluation of 
that outsider theory. Very occasionally there may be an outsider theorist 
with something a bit special and new to add to the incumbent position. 

But laws of probabilities make these two rarities certain never to 
coincide. The dogmatic amateurs with 80% education, are certainly able 
bodied for dismissing these theories. But sadly not for spotting the 
distinctiveness of that rare new theory. It probably never shows up anyway. 
Just as well too, all considered. 


 

> >>My thought was along the lines of - they see this guy - he's a pacifist 
> liberal, possibly with Buddhist leanings - and in some cases (I wasn't 
> thinking everyone, I think I phrased that badly - have to dash off some of 
> these posts!) they react against that. Oh, he thinks he's so clever but he 
> wouldn't last five minutes in the real world - or words to that effect. I 
> just threw "Jewish" in there because I thought it might also be a component 
> in some cases but I seem to have hit a nerve, and I apologise to anyone who 
> found my comment offensive or indeed just wide of the mark, as it perhaps 
> was in 99% of cases.
>
>  
>
> I wasn’t of

Re: Origins

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 2:09:11 PM UTC, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The Hindu cycles seem more plausible then the Quran, Soonah, and Bukhari. 
> Yet, no faith describes how the night sky appears and how it got that way.
>

Nor Science. The blackness is subject to a range of speculation. It adds 
up by one reading, but consistency is lost again no sooner than won, by 
facing the wrong way to another reading. E.g. Physical law doesn't derive 
from negative, hence absence of light. But the cosmological interpretation 
worldview situates every point in the universe with the same effect we get 
where we are - in the middle, everything expanding way. 

Making the universe effectively infinite and homogenous. That isn't 
necessarily the view of everyone, but there's no alternative answer in play 
either. 

But the consequence for that should be a lot more light. So your point is 
square for the faiths, philosophies and Science alike. 



 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:39:25 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* Alberto G. Corona >
>  
> >> No interest is this subject Chris. Ask elsewhere for such recreative 
> activties. John maybe? I don`t know. 
>
> Then why did you descend into using the imagery of buggery? Quoting you: "
> beeing *assholed *by a bunch of atheist communists, you may feel yoursef 
> relaxed."
>
o
FWIW - probably not done knowingly - but in patching the above line, to 
inferences about fixations with buggery the sexual act, you depend yourself 
on 'the fallacy of the context'. As such it's not a legitimate allegation. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 12:01:56 PM UTC, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Goto -3
>
> Read  my previous responses. That will entertain you in a Homersimpsonian 
> loop and we would be liberated for a time to do more interesting things
> El 04/12/2014 01:32, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > escribió:
>
>>
>>   --
>>  *From:* Alberto G. Corona >
>>  
>>
>>
>> Neither I praise Muslims nor I kill catholics
>>
>> >.Please, Chris, this is a serious group. The gay discussion group is in 
>> your screen, to the left, under the image of Freddy Mercury.
>>
>> Aberto -- If you are such a "serious" -- in addition to being such  a 
>> pious -- person, then why did  you introduce the imagery of buggery into 
>> the thread? Twas not I who inserted this kind of language into this thread. 
>>
>> Seems to me, instead that you are rather fascinated by it Alberto; 
>> perhaps instead of suggesting others go get buggered you should give in to 
>> your own secretly held repressed desires... loosen up and enjoy 
>> yourself God will forgive you.
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-04 0:39 GMT+01:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com >:
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>>  *From:* Alberto G. Corona >
>>  
>> >> No interest is this subject Chris. Ask elsewhere for such recreative 
>> activties. John maybe? I don`t know. 
>>
>> Then why did you descend into using the imagery of buggery? Quoting you: "
>> beeing *assholed *by a bunch of atheist communists, you may feel yoursef 
>> relaxed."
>>
>> Being "assholed" is quite clearly, another way of saying getting 
>> buggered. So for you to now state you have no interest, in the subject, is 
>> either a bald faced lie or perhaps you are suffering from a selective 
>> memory hole and can't recall what you just said just moments before.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-04 0:14 GMT+01:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com >:
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>>  *From:* Alberto G. Corona >
>> *To:* everything-list > 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 2:59 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
>>  
>> As Bruno would say, You are full of bad computations. You can not live 
>> long with such attitude. 
>>
>> I recommend you to buy a  Gameboy, a Joystick and play the kill the Pope 
>> videogame. After killing a few  thounsands catholics, give praise to 
>> Muslims, and leaving beeing assholed by a bunch of atheist communists, you 
>> may feel yoursef relaxed. Do that before entering here. Your post will be 
>> much more balanced and you may say something interesting from time to time.
>>
>> For being such a pious neo-Jesuit, you demonstrate an alarming propensity 
>> to use vulgar anal-centric  language. I thought good Catholics (as I assume 
>> you view yourself as being) were no longer so deeply into the practice of 
>> buggery -- and the colorful usage of the terminology of buggery. I had 
>> thought that the Catholic church had finally reformed itself on this 
>> practice; perhaps you are just old school in this.
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-03 18:41 GMT+01:00 John Clark >:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014  Alberto G. Corona > 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Why you atheist end all discussion with God here, God there etc?
>>
>>
>> The world is infested with religious nincompoops who have far more power 
>> to shape our culture than I do, so I will stop talking about the imbecilic 
>> God theory when they do.
>>
>> > Ok, it is the child in you that blame his Father for not going back to 
>> home to play with him. 
>>
>>
>> Speaking of the influence your parents had on your adult life, haven't 
>> you ever wondered why religion and geography are so strongly linked, more 
>> specifically haven't you ever wondered why you're a Christian and not a 
>> Muslim or a Hindu ?  It's not because of some deep philosophical reason, 
>> it's because your mommy and daddy were Christian and for no other reason.
>>
>> > Come to Him, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and He will give you 
>> rest. "Take His yoke upon you and learn from Him, for He is gentle and 
>> humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For his yoke is 
>> easy and His burden is light.  Matthew 11:29
>>
>>
>> For nearly any statement contained in that bronze age book of 
>> superstitions and fairy tales that we call the Bible you can find something 
>> just a few pages later that expresses the exact opposite idea.  Our burden 
>> is light?  
>>
>> "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the 
>> plants of the field; By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat 
>> until you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made 
>> from dust, and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:19
>>
>> Or how's this for contradictions?
>>
>>
No contradiction.
 

>
>> "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" Exodus 21:24
>>
>>
This

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:14:14 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:51:18 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 3 December 2014 at 19:25,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It goes without saying you seek to make a statement about me somewhere 
>>> there. 
>>>
>>> I'll try to catch my flaws a little more frequently. But something I 
>>> definitely do is apologize when I see I've mistreated someone. I mean here. 
>>>
>>> I wonder if you will man-up to the apology you owe me? You've been 
>>> completely in the wrong here. 
>>>
>>> So has Brent. Will he apologize? 
>>>
>>> personally I doubt either of you will. You are both involved in 
>>> organized shunning of me. I didn't do anything so serious to deserve that. 
>>> Brent's been doing for so long I can remember the last time he said 
>>> anything. And that when over the same period I've frequently said things 
>>> like "I'm sorry if I ever something", and compliment him. Yet he has just 
>>> carried on. 
>>>
>>> So you're a couple of shunners for no good reason. That puts down a few 
>>> notches.  You've had the position to do this to me. And you have. So you 
>>> misuse power. And for that reason, Na you won't apologize. Back to shunning 
>>> looks strong. 
>>>
>>> Can I just say I didn't read it that way, but as part of the ongIoing 
>> discussion. (But I admit us Kiwis are known for our thick skins...)
>>
>
>  You are thick-skinned. to the little slights of others..elbows on the 
> greasy pole of social pecking order. I would have said  you're sensitive. 
>
>  If you meant in terms of someone else getting it...almost everyone gets 
> that Liz..no need for a name. Be like special naming an armpit. 
>
> So you didn't read it that way. How about you ask them, right here in the 
> list. I doubt they're gross liars. Ask them Liz. I'll bet you 10 of those 
> kiwi dollars I read them exactly as they wanted me to do. 
>

In case that silky kiwi thick hide obscures the salient outcome of the 
discussion today. Recall I was suggesting those two areas had been the 
subject of considerable censorship,  that effectively discouraged taking 
certain lines toward the areas. And punishes instances of crossing red 
lines. 

You said you thought it was nuts and anti-semites. I agreed because that 
was the outcome whichever of us was right. Or even both of us. So we then 
went to the 'details'. The reason we had  is there was no way to 
differentiate between us. This was true in multiple ways. For example, if I 
was right, then the views you expressed actually become the predicted 
behaviour - prostration.

So we went to the details to see who was right. Problem was we didn't 
resolve because Brent and Christ - neither having spoken to me for months - 
suddenly felt the need to weigh into the argument. And again the pattern 
fits both our arguments. 

So where are we now? Is it ok if I go first? 

Well my thesis predicted no-one would acknowledge sight of what was there, 
if 'there' was somewhere naughty little people - not good un's  will dare 
to look. That was my prediction. 

And I fatithfully relayed what was there. 

Your prediction has you, Brent and Chris, dealing with what was there in a 
business as usual manner. My prediction would be avoidance, possibly 
initial anger at being exposed to it. Which in that event would be followed 
up by some kind of aggression and distancing involving me. But most 
important, you would be gettingout of bed tomorrow with your views 
unchanged and you would never mention what was there again as preference.

OK? 

So which one of us Liz, was right in the fullness of things? I'll let you 
choose. I won't question it. As an act of trust and faith in personal 
integrity. You call it. 


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:51:18 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 December 2014 at 19:25, > wrote:
>
>>
>> It goes without saying you seek to make a statement about me somewhere 
>> there. 
>>
>> I'll try to catch my flaws a little more frequently. But something I 
>> definitely do is apologize when I see I've mistreated someone. I mean here. 
>>
>> I wonder if you will man-up to the apology you owe me? You've been 
>> completely in the wrong here. 
>>
>> So has Brent. Will he apologize? 
>>
>> personally I doubt either of you will. You are both involved in organized 
>> shunning of me. I didn't do anything so serious to deserve that. Brent's 
>> been doing for so long I can remember the last time he said anything. And 
>> that when over the same period I've frequently said things like "I'm sorry 
>> if I ever something", and compliment him. Yet he has just carried on. 
>>
>> So you're a couple of shunners for no good reason. That puts down a few 
>> notches.  You've had the position to do this to me. And you have. So you 
>> misuse power. And for that reason, Na you won't apologize. Back to shunning 
>> looks strong. 
>>
>> Can I just say I didn't read it that way, but as part of the ongIoing 
> discussion. (But I admit us Kiwis are known for our thick skins...)
>

 You are thick-skinned. to the little slights of others..elbows on the 
greasy pole of social pecking order. I would have said  you're sensitive. 

 If you meant in terms of someone else getting it...almost everyone gets 
that Liz..no need for a name. Be like special naming an armpit. 

So you didn't read it that way. How about you ask them, right here in the 
list. I doubt they're gross liars. Ask them Liz. I'll bet you 10 of those 
kiwi dollars I read them exactly as they wanted me to do. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 6:16:24 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Alberto G. 
> Corona 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:02 AM
> *To:* everything-list
> *Subject:* Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
>
>  
>
> Why you atheist end all discussion with God here, God there etc?
>
> Ok, it is the child in you that blame his Father for not going back to 
> home to play with him. After playing with the toys-concepts and breaking 
> them you discover every now and them that you are alone in the home uh?
>
> Do not mourn with rage. You have Jesus Christ around waiting for your 
> conversion. Call Him, Accept Him, cry of joy becase Christ came back to 
> you, and you will never be alone. And you will make this discussion group 
> something more than a boring place full of resentful atheists and worthless 
> agnostics.
>
> Come to Him, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and He will give you rest. 
> 29 "Take His yoke upon you and 
> learn from Him, for He is gentle and humble in heart, and you will find 
> rest for your souls. 30  For his 
> yoke is easy and His burden is light.
>
> And all the integer sequences in the multiverse will dream joyful dreams. 
> And even UDA and event AUDA will discard your bad computation since they 
> will not be robust enough.
>
>  
>
> Did this outburst of unsolicited preaching make you feel especially pious 
> this morning friar Alberto?
>
> -Chris 
>
>  
>
>  
>
> 2014-12-03 13:13 GMT+01:00 John Clark >:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 8:45 PM, LizR > 
> wrote:
>  
>
> > the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth 
> (and the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object 
> specifically to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation?
>

 

>  
>
> Because the religious fundamentalists are correct and the liberal 
> theologians are wrong, Darwin and the idea of a benevolent God are totally 
> inconsistent. God could just snapped His fingers and create all the animals 
> on this planet including humans; instead, being the sadistic bastard that 
> He is, He decided to make them using the slowest and cruelest process 
> imaginable.John K Clark
>
Another way to put things together would be throw something positive, 
self-confident...something we feel is true even if our heads won't allow 
it. Like how ugly and evil some microscopic life Ahnforms are. How 
insatiable their appetites. Maybe that ugliness is objective. Which would 
mean someone not-god was around first. Maybe the potential for high virtue, 
the beauty of the human scale ecological landscape. The beauty of humans 
and their art. Maybe that's because slowly and agonizingly an opposite 
force to not-god began to emerge. And maybe we're his last throw of the 
dice. Let

Come now John. Johnny boy. Let us kneel together in the orthogonal of super 
massive black hole angular moment correlation. Let us pray. We'll say yours 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMh8orMNqc
 rrr


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Newton, Darwin, Einstein

[zibbsey]

Doesn't equate to quality or value or contribution or worth or anything 
else, but FWIW I've been going over these three for years and years. At 
least a year and a day anyway. 

All I can do is testimony what it looks like where I am. All there are 
invariant across an unbelievably range. All three are unique from the other 
across and an unbelievable spread. 

Not a lot meaning there. Like...on Einstein alone. You'd think if all the 
worst allegations were true he'd be stripped of everything. He'd be 
nothing. 

But isn't true, even on worst case scenarios. And it's the same for all 
three. 

Einstein is still one of the great geniuses. His Nobel is never drawn into 
question. It was for the photo-electric effect. 

He becomes a decisive figure through to the mid century. Still at the top 
table. Reason being, he actually paid his way through that. He came with a 
lot brilliant shit. Bose-Einstein this, Einstein that. 

He's still in the esteem of brilliant guys like what's his face Mr Matrix 
of QM. He's still decisive in how the picture of cosmology and physics 
panned out. He no more or less responsible fior the QM / Relativity 
problem. 
He still makes the fundamenta,l preditions from GR,. And it's still THOISE 
that sette the theory, and drive the other things. 

All three of these guys, the more I look to see,  like fixtures in time and 
space. Fundamentally decisive fixed points that individually and taken 
together shape the characteristics of Science, and far beyond. 

Totally weird imho

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:17:16 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:39 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
>
>  
>
> On 3 December 2014 at 16:29, > wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was 
> wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that 
> Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that 
> attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better 
> pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the 
> point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all, 
> the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and 
> the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically 
> to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation?
>
>  
>
> I'd guess because...
>
>  
>
> 1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler creatures.
>
> 2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if they 
> can't really.
>
>  
>
> (I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they don't 
> like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...)
>
>  
>
> I can't disagree for the simple reason  creationist nut 
> over-representation on Darwin and anti-Semite over representation on 
> Einstein is fait accompli pretty much the same regardess which one of us is 
> right. If you are right, then well you say they are over-represented, 
> and this is the case you are right, so...there they are! 
>
>  
>
> On the other hand if I'm right and these are two areas that have seen 
> periods of large discouragement and disincentive to 'look there'. Well 
> then, by consequence of that, all the genuine truth seekers never showed up 
> at all. And the consequence of that is that the people that did show up are 
> going to be religious nut and anti-Semite over-represented. 
>
>  
>
> So we have to go to the details Liz, and bring in other exhibits 
> supporting our case. 
>
>  
>
> My Exhibit A is: Richard Feynman hasn't received anti-semitically 
> motivated criticism at anything like the levels you imply for Einstein. Yet 
> for a large number of people he's up there at the very top table of great 
> scientific genius. He has also received a huge amount of dissent and 
> criticism. No one says that is anti-Semitic. And by and large (I think) 
> it's been dispelled. 
>
>  
>
> See point 2. Theories have to be more or less understandable before the 
> cranks start attacking them. So "we evolved from apes" and "you can't 
> travel faster than light" are far easier targets than summing over 
> histories and absorber theory and so on. 
>
>  
>
> Exhibit B is hugely disproportionate 25% of Nobels. A lot of big names 
> there and all have received criticism yet none apparent involving 
> dramatical levels of anti-Semitism. 
>
>  
>
> Exhibit C:  
>
> It's not about the theories with Einstein. It's about whether he took 
> other peoples ideas. You are aware Hilbert published the complete field 
> equations 5 days before Einstein? You are aware every single character of 
> the 1905 paper bar one, appears in papers in 1904, 1903 and further back. 
> Einstein claimed he never read them. Late in life he tacitly conceded he 
> did. And his two close friends later went on record they all been there and 
> they pored over those papers for weeks. 
>
>  
>
> Those are legitimate reasons to doubt Einstein. 
>
>  
>
> >>Those are not the sort of reasons people wheel out when they attack 
> relativity (generally special) or evolution. They claim to have spotted a 
> flaw everyone else missed, approaching it from a very pop-sci viewpoint.
>
>  
>
> Liz, I am with you here that evolution and e=mc2 make for highly visible, 
> honey pots tempting all manner of oddball, legend-in-their-minds geniuses 
> (or the pious pompous religious sort for the league of Darwin haters). I 
> also agree that the tactic used is similar – spotting the overlooked flaw 
> etc. 
>

 

> However, I do not see the reason or need to invoke anti-Semitism – in 
> Einstein’s case, as being the main driver. Sure some of his detractors are 
> driven by the racist impulse, controlling their illing minds, but most – in 
> my experience – seem to be ultimately harmless sorts, even if, often they 
> are obnoxious, socially retarded bores.
>
. 
It goes without saying you seek to make a statement about me somewhere 
there. 

I'll try to catch my flaws a little more frequently. But something I 
definitely do is apologize when I see I've mistreated someone. I mean here. 

I wonder if you will man-up to the apology you owe me? You've been 
completely in the wrong here. 

So has Brent. Will he apolog

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:45:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 12/2/2014 7:38 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 3 December 2014 at 16:29, > wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: 
>>
>>   For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin 
>>> was wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that 
>>> Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that 
>>> attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better 
>>> pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the 
>>> point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all, 
>>> the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and 
>>> the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically 
>>> to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation?
>>>
>>>  I'd guess because...
>>>
>>>  1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler 
>>> creatures.
>>> 2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if 
>>> they can't really.
>>>
>>>  (I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they 
>>> don't like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...)
>>>  
>>
>>I can't disagree for the simple reason  creationist nut 
>> over-representation on Darwin and anti-Semite over representation on 
>> Einstein is fait accompli pretty much the same regardess which one of us is 
>> right. If you are right, then well you say they are over-represented, 
>> and this is the case you are right, so...there they are! 
>>
>>  On the other hand if I'm right and these are two areas that have seen 
>> periods of large discouragement and disincentive to 'look there'. Well 
>> then, by consequence of that, all the genuine truth seekers never showed up 
>> at all. And the consequence of that is that the people that did show up are 
>> going to be religious nut and anti-Semite over-represented. 
>>
>>  So we have to go to the details Liz, and bring in other exhibits 
>> supporting our case. 
>>
>>  My Exhibit A is: Richard Feynman hasn't received anti-semitically 
>> motivated criticism at anything like the levels you imply for Einstein. Yet 
>> for a large number of people he's up there at the very top table of great 
>> scientific genius. He has also received a huge amount of dissent and 
>> criticism. No one says that is anti-Semitic. And by and large (I think) 
>> it's been dispelled. 
>>  
>
>  See point 2. Theories have to be more or less understandable before the 
> cranks start attacking them. So "we evolved from apes" and "you can't 
> travel faster than light" are far easier targets than summing over 
> histories and absorber theory and so on. 
>   
>
> Right.  And also it's easier to attack a theory developed by a single 
> person by ad hominem assertions.  Einstein and Darwin developed their 
> theories almost singel handedly, while Feynman's contributions to QED were 
> mainly calculational.  The same concepts of QED were shared with Schwinger 
> and others.
>
>
>>  Exhibit B is hugely disproportionate 25% of Nobels. A lot of big names 
>> there and all have received criticism yet none apparent involving 
>> dramatical levels of anti-Semitism. 
>>
>>  Exhibit C:  
>> It's not about the theories with Einstein. It's about whether he took 
>> other peoples ideas. You are aware Hilbert published the complete field 
>> equations 5 days before Einstein? 
>>  
>   
> That's ridiculous.  Hilbert arrived at the same equations and he could 
> have argued for priority - although in fact he conceded to Einstein. 
>

It's not ridiculous - this was consensus to the 1990's. More on that below. 

Hilbert didn't claim priority but that doesn't change anything.

The Nobel Prize official website includes this fact in its official 
timeline, quoted below with link at bottom. 

!
*1915* On November 25, nearly ten years after the foundation of special 
relativity, Einstein submitted his paper *The Field Equations of 
Gravitation* for publication, which gave the correct field equations for *the 
theory of general relativity* (or *general relativity* for short). 
Actually, the German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article 
containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days 
before Einstein. Hilbert never claimed priority for this theory.
 http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/history-1.html

But there's no way that Einstein could have stolen Hilbert's idea and 
> published in five days.
>

Yes. Einstein and Hilbert were in touch from an earlier point in the 
process. Einstein  visited Hilbert at his home and stayed for several days 
in the lead up. But the primary data is that Hilbert published first. 

In the 90's there was a book that claimed to have examined the print 
negatives of Hilbert's 5 days earlier paper, and found a core piece of 
theory that should be at the top of the

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 3:38:47 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 December 2014 at 16:29, > wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin 
>>> was wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that 
>>> Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that 
>>> attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better 
>>> pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the 
>>> point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all, 
>>> the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and 
>>> the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically 
>>> to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation?
>>>
>>> I'd guess because...
>>>
>>> 1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler creatures.
>>> 2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if 
>>> they can't really.
>>>
>>> (I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they 
>>> don't like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...)
>>>
>>
>> I can't disagree for the simple reason  creationist nut 
>> over-representation on Darwin and anti-Semite over representation on 
>> Einstein is fait accompli pretty much the same regardess which one of us is 
>> right. If you are right, then well you say they are over-represented, 
>> and this is the case you are right, so...there they are! 
>>
>> On the other hand if I'm right and these are two areas that have seen 
>> periods of large discouragement and disincentive to 'look there'. Well 
>> then, by consequence of that, all the genuine truth seekers never showed up 
>> at all. And the consequence of that is that the people that did show up are 
>> going to be religious nut and anti-Semite over-represented. 
>>
>> So we have to go to the details Liz, and bring in other exhibits 
>> supporting our case. 
>>
>> My Exhibit A is: Richard Feynman hasn't received anti-semitically 
>> motivated criticism at anything like the levels you imply for Einstein. Yet 
>> for a large number of people he's up there at the very top table of great 
>> scientific genius. He has also received a huge amount of dissent and 
>> criticism. No one says that is anti-Semitic. And by and large (I think) 
>> it's been dispelled. 
>>
>
> See point 2. Theories have to be more or less understandable before the 
> cranks start attacking them. So "we evolved from apes" and "you can't 
> travel faster than light" are far easier targets than summing over 
> histories and absorber theory and so on. 
>

Maybe for the religious nuts, but anti-Semitic attackers don't need to 
worry about the details of the theory They can attack using one of the 
blood libels, say. 

But that said, the intuitive character does make those two theories more 
approachable

But then again, QM has been made intuitive. It might not be legitimate. But 
all kinds of layers have been added to QM that are accessible to the 
ordinary lunatic. Go look on youtube! 
 

>
>> Exhibit B is hugely disproportionate 25% of Nobels. A lot of big names 
>> there and all have received criticism yet none apparent involving 
>> dramatical levels of anti-Semitism. 
>>
>> Exhibit C:  
>> It's not about the theories with Einstein. It's about whether he took 
>> other peoples ideas. You are aware Hilbert published the complete field 
>> equations 5 days before Einstein? You are aware every single character of 
>> the 1905 paper bar one, appears in papers in 1904, 1903 and further back. 
>> Einstein claimed he never read them. Late in life he tacitly conceded he 
>> did. And his two close friends later went on record they all been there and 
>> they pored over those papers for weeks. 
>>
>> Those are legitimate reasons to doubt Einstein. 
>>
>
> Those are not the sort of reasons people wheel out when they attack 
> relativity (generally special) or evolution. They claim to have spotted a 
> flaw everyone else missed, approaching it from a very pop-sci viewpoint.
>

If we're assuming nuts, possibly. But in terms of where the most heat and 
controversy has been on Einstein it has been on this turf.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was 
> wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that 
> Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that 
> attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better 
> pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the 
> point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all, 
> the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and 
> the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically 
> to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation?
>
> I'd guess because...
>
> 1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler creatures.
> 2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if they 
> can't really.
>
> (I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they don't 
> like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...)
>

I can't disagree for the simple reason  creationist nut over-representation 
on Darwin and anti-Semite over representation on Einstein is fait accompli 
pretty much the same regardess which one of us is right. If you are right, 
then well you say they are over-represented, and this is the case you 
are right, so...there they are! 

On the other hand if I'm right and these are two areas that have seen 
periods of large discouragement and disincentive to 'look there'. Well 
then, by consequence of that, all the genuine truth seekers never showed up 
at all. And the consequence of that is that the people that did show up are 
going to be religious nut and anti-Semite over-represented. 

So we have to go to the details Liz, and bring in other exhibits supporting 
our case. 

My Exhibit A is: Richard Feynman hasn't received anti-semitically motivated 
criticism at anything like the levels you imply for Einstein. Yet for a 
large number of people he's up there at the very top table of great 
scientific genius. He has also received a huge amount of dissent and 
criticism. No one says that is anti-Semitic. And by and large (I think) 
it's been dispelled. 

Exhibit B is hugely disproportionate 25% of Nobels. A lot of big names 
there and all have received criticism yet none apparent involving 
dramatical levels of anti-Semitism. 

Exhibit C:  
It's not about the theories with Einstein. It's about whether he took other 
peoples ideas. You are aware Hilbert published the complete field equations 
5 days before Einstein? You are aware every single character of the 1905 
paper bar one, appears in papers in 1904, 1903 and further back. Einstein 
claimed he never read them. Late in life he tacitly conceded he did. And 
his two close friends later went on record they all been there and they 
pored over those papers for weeks. 

Those are legitimate reasons to doubt Einstein. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:41:19 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> Zibbsey wrote:
>
> >I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific 
>> standards before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning 
>> all that. 
>>
>
> Darwin was in my opinion the greatest scientist who ever lived because he 
> provided a elegant answer to the question of how we got from simple 
> bacteria to human beings. 
>

It was an elegant - intuitive - answer. But at the time of going to press 
it was in fact unviable. Darwin was aware of this but only vaguely. It 
wasn't until Mendel the reason it had been unviable arrived...at the 
same time as the solution that made it viable. In terms of that aspect.  

I think it was you the other day that said had Darwin kept his nerve he 
might have been credited with other major scientific advances. But it isn't 
always the most robust avenue to go down, assuming something is complete in 
of itself. In the case of natural selection it depends what level of 
abstraction the matter in question is situated on..
 

> But even Darwin didn't answer all the mysteries of biology, how we got 
> from simple chemicals to simple bacteria still remains a mystery because 
> for Darwin's mechanism to work you need heredity and there is no clear 
> understanding of how you could have heredity in the era before bacteria 
> existed.
>
 
..which is what I find so interesting about your position here. you 
believe in natural selection as you say, then you might have held your 
nerve a little here and taken the very robust stance that, the problem of 
heredity must ultimately be resolvable because for an unbroken causality of 
events starting in chemistry and ending in biology not to be impossible, 
strong forces of natural selection were necessary. 
 

>
> > Anything remotely that appeared to question the detail of a natural 
>> selection worldview was policed as suspicious of being creationist at root. 
>>
>
> That's not true, many real scientists are working on the origin of life 
> question and there are a lot of promising ideas that are worth pursuing, 
> although nothing has been proven yet. 
>

It isn't legitimate to negate a broad point spanning a very large area 
'origins', with a meagre exception like this. I obviously know about 
abiogenesis and efforts thee. But that is a sick-puppy science. Even if 
they make life in the lab it will remain so. Because we'll never attain 
surety it is what happened to create our life. For that to be approached we 
will need the generalization of natural selection that must be available 
for life to have been possible.
 
 

> As for religion, if it had a good explanation  to the origin of life I'd 
> become the most religious person you'd ever care to meet, but it doesn't 
> have anything of the sort.  All that religious people say is "God did it" 
> but when asked how God did it they just say "I don't know".  Well... I 
> don't need God as the middle man, I'm perfectly capable of saying "I don't 
> know" all by myself and don't need to invoke the God theory to do i
>

Well actually religions like Christianity (not only) have a fairly similar 
structure I that they involve some major assumptions early on, and most of 
the really impotant stuff after are more or less consequences.   

They say "God did it". Ok. 

But then you say "The multiverse did it" 

>
> A logical person is allowed to say "I don't know", but a logical person is 
> not allowed to pretend he understands something when he does not by 
> embracing a theory that is, not necessarily wrong but is, obviously stupid.
>

They'll be calling this period of catch all infinity theories, pretty 
damn stupid. If Science survives. Which it may not. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:05:43 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> Zibby,
>
> They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put 
> their careers at risk.
> It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in 
> print.
> What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
> David Deutsch is the exception.
>
> Zappy
>

which one of us does that make the butch kangaroo?  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna 
> and I are talking about.
> It is a form of cosmic entanglement.
>

how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific 
idea or a catch-all explanation?  

>
> However, if you recall I extrapolated from G&P's paper that black holes 
> must be intelligent to be monogamous
>

I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going 
on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned 
at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to 
include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they 
talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get 
inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory 
explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory 
before it comes up empirically? 
 

> And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on 
> the same basis.
>

same response as above

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
> But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
> So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
> Richard
>

I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of 
correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:  
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html

I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the 
data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it 
isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations. 

obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for 
that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably 
exceed mine.



-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could 
> become correlated.
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
>

I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see 
them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations 
may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't, 
have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow. 

Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows 
each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape 
because some involve correlations of distant objects) 

So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these 
different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of 
each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained 
together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently 
derives the two local explanations. 

Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky. 

At some point objects like "the historic cosmological view" need to be 
included. And "the big bang". And then more widely things like "stable 
enduring structure" and "biological life". 

The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all 
together. 
  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:07:17 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were 
>> provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed 
>> them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
>>
>> I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to 
>> the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed 
>> to be relatively negligible?
>>
>
> Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in 
> terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of  
> course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter 
> interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, 
> if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You 
> are 100% in the logic IMHO. 
>
> I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. 
> That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result. 
> Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner 
> madness.
>
> But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else 
> provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. 
>
> If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on 
> his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. 
>
> Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to 
> tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a 
> brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also 
> an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of 
> his own personality or personal biases. 
>
> his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media 
> distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't 
> follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and 
> training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it 
> worthwhile. 
>
> look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a 
> lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the 
> frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy 
> away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). 
>
> GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. 
> Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the 
> universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. 
> Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might 
> look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. 
>
>
>
> But then again, who is. 
>


that 'but then again, who is' was supposed to go under the point Motl is 
not independent of his own temperament and biases.  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were 
> provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed 
> them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
>
> I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to 
> the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed 
> to be relatively negligible?
>

Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in terms of your 
actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of  course. How can a 
piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with 
a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same 
data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You are 100% in 
the logic IMHO. 

I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. 
That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result. 
Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner 
madness.

But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else provide 
a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. 

If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on 
his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. 

Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to 
tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a 
brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also 
an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of 
his own personality or personal biases. 

his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media 
distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't 
follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and 
training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it 
worthwhile. 

look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a 
lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the 
frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy 
away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). 

GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. 
Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the 
universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. 
Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might 
look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. 



But then again, who is. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:19 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> LizR wrote: 
>> > On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> > > > > wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one 
>> > aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are 
>> > two or more types of entropy, therefore, there are at least two 
>> > dimensions of time? 
>> > 
>> > Entropy is a large scale statistical effect (classically) and has no 
>> > direct bearing on time. If it can be made more fundamental then 
>> perhaps, 
>> > yes... 
>>
>> Entropy has a direct bearing on the direction of time via the second law 
>> of thermodynamics. "The second law of thermodynamics states that in a 
>> natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the 
>> entropies of the participating systems." (Wikipedia). Increase is a 
>> temporal statement. One could not state this law without reference to 
>> the passage of time. The 'increasing' part gives the direction of time. 
>>
>
> Entropy has a unique expression for each context cropping up on a regular 
> basis. Isn't that so? I thought the driver behind that was each context has 
> some distinguishing feature that changes the intuitive approach to thinking 
> about entropy. 
>
> Like entropy for Chemistry. The mechanism tends to be chemical reactions, 
> and the intuitive sequencing for that has the distinguishing feature of 
> being scale invariant, more or less. So the intuitive direction is always 
> to the maximum scale with the same bounds. So it tends to be about the law 
> of finding the shortest path to the equilibrium.t How the approach is 
> exponential. Because chemistry follows the same sequence at the same rate 
> for the same initial conditions, the same for a 10m cubed section of...the 
> surface of a planet or whatever...as the same structure up scale to the 
> whole planet. 
>
> Is that wrong? So anyway, entropy and disorder and 'states', 
> thermodynamics, time (scale free means time invariant more or less). None 
> of that gets mentioned at all in the most common reference. 
>
> I appreciate nothing I say contradicts what you say...it's just that I 
> feel that this is a really fundamental character to entropy. No one feels 
> the same way it seemsI have mentioned this before but I don't think I 
> ever get a reply.
>

I acknowledge that most people here have me on ignore or appear to. 
Acknowledged and respected. I would really appreciate views/corrections to 
this point however. Therefore would it be possible for anyone who does not 
have me on ignore to repost the point, so that those that do can see it and 
if they wish comment. Presumably points don't have to be on ignore even if 
people do. 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound 
> systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the 
> universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same 
> rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid 
> test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why 
> I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier 
> reply I got (not from you)
>
> OK I see what you were saying. I don't know the answer but I think Bruno 
then Bruce provided a plausible explanation for this. 

Just going on the fact the data is from a single source and goes back to 
June and has not seen a large amount of panic, would suggest the finding is 
tenuous at present. 

Where I was coming from, in posting it, was to lay down a marker as it 
were, that this is one to watch. 

You're point was fair...I was somewhere at the time :O) 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:38:54 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, spudboy100  wrote:
>
> >> The word "purposeless" is purposeless unless there is a referent. 
>>> Purposeless for who?  Maybe the universe finds me to be purposeless but I 
>>> don't care any more than the universe would care if I found it to be 
>>> purposeless; we both just ignore the others opinion of and continue to go 
>>> about our business. 
>>>
>>
>> > But the universe is stronger than you are
>>
>
> But I am smarter than the universe. Lots of people are smarter than me but 
> the universe is as dumb as a sack full of rocks and at least I'm smarter 
> than that.
>
>  John K Clark
>

I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific standards 
before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning all that. 

Opinion: this matter has been caricatured as a debate between creationism 
and naturalism. This isn't a logically reasonable position simply because, 
even from a perspective of natural selection, the point at which natural 
selection begins to act, and why...or what is the pressure driving a force 
of natural selection, is unresolved until we actually begin to approach a 
convincing explanation of life. At the moment, the price of separating 
'origins' from life - by talking about self-replication as the origin of 
natural selection forces - is tantamount to 'backing off' all the really 
hard questions to a nebulous period prior to life. 

Which has been damaging to scientific discovery in historically observable 
ways, with historically observable roots that fall short of the values, let 
alone standards,  of science. 

We'd have to go back to the stand-off following Darwin's publication. That 
battle - at the time with Christian values - was effectively won in the 
19th century. Yet science and its supporters continued to thrash away at 
religious belief when arguably a more magnanimous conciliatory framework 
would have been far more appropriate. Assuming the goal was for science to 
be left in peace. 

There was no way for Christian faith to take back the ground, because 
science was by then all over the world, and its product had become 
fundamental to the relative wealth and status - and military might - of 
nations. It was desirable, but not critical whether or not classrooms in 
every district taught evolution. Science was driven by small intellectual 
elites from the beginning. 

The behaviour toward faith backfired in science in ways that are still 
being felt today. By pushing faith into a corner, science created a 
dogmatic culture within its own interior that allowed a small cadre of 
'darwinists' to effectively control the direction of enquiry. Anything 
remotely that appeared to question the detail of a natural selection 
worldview was policed as suspicious of being creationist at root. 

By the same turn faith was pushed ever further back, toward the limits of 
science itself. Origins. This same cadre did not think this through, and 
did not see it coming clearly until it was upon them. By that time, too 
much was at stake for them to concede any ground...even ground that was 
scientifically reasonable to concede. Therefore they had no alternative but 
to conjuren up a fallacious argument that 'origins' was not a scientific 
question. 

As a result no work was done that might have been, on anything pertaining 
to 'origins'. It is no coincidence that the sheer vertical brick wall 
science now finds itself up against, is all about origins. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:57:38 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM, > wrote:
>
> I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect 
>> consciousness 
>>
>
> It can't and neither can we.
>
> > (because we can't, I think you said) 
>>
>
> The reason isn't because of us, it's just that neither we nor Evolution 
> nor anything else can detect consciousness other than our own, we can only 
> detect actions. If Evolution can detect it then so can we and so can the 
> Turing Test, and if Evolution can't then none of them can.
>
> > What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of 
>> difference between the same traits in two individuals,
>>
>
> Only if those different traits produce different actions. If a intelligent 
> but non-conscious animal behaves differently than a intelligent and 
> conscious animal then Evolution can detect that and so the Turing Test.  
> And Evolution will favor whichever behavior is smarter, and if I'm correct 
> and you can't have intelligence without consciousness then that would make 
> Evolution's choice easy.
>
> > Natural Selection will just favour the more overall efficient traits for 
>> that purpose. The same goes for consciousness .
>>
>
> Exactly, otherwise you and I would not be conscious.
>
>  > This is you key big idea John. Your idea that evolution cannot detect 
>> consciousness.
>>
>
> It can't.
>
> > you seem to be saying you don't know what my post is disproving 
>>
>
> That is exactly correct, I don't know what your post is disproving, 
> certainly not that Evolution can not see consciousness. 
>
> > Go to the post and give your counter argument if you have one. 
>>
>
> Give me a argument that Evolution can see consciousness and I'll either 
> give you a counterargument or concede and thank you for correcting my 
> error, but so far all I've heard is that consciousness makes a animal 
> behave differently, something I already knew MUST be true or Evolution 
> would have never produced it. And if it effects behavior then the Turing 
> Test must work for consciousness too because lack of consciousness implies 
> lack of intelligence and that implies lack of intelligent actions.  
>

OK thanks for the above points, particularly that you steered clear of 
stock phrases. That's appreciated simply because although some of 
those phrases are superior in their succinctnessre-use within an actual 
challenge can give the impression of not being authentically open to the 
challenge. Doesn't have to be true in fact to be a legitimate impression. 

I can see that although I said it didn't matter what your basis actually 
was, in fact I was wrong in the important sense of, it mattered if I was 
effectively working on an assumption that considerably devalued the 
thinking you had done. Which believing you had said evolution couldn't see 
consciousness BECAUSE humans cannot, actually does amount to. Not knowingly 
on my side, but all the same. 

I'll get back to you, dude.






-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:03:53 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Nov 2014, at 10:08 am, Richard Ruquist  > wrote: 
> > 
> > It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part, 
> > but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent 
> > as a group than individually. 
> > 
> > I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement 
> > in a mind/matter duality. 
> > Richard 
>
>
> Do you want to put up a new thread about this? I am deeply interested in 
> "groupthink" and see it as largely unacknowledged. 


I think you should kick off a thread about this. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 6:34:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, > wrote:
>
> > You've not answered the logic so far 
>>
>
> Give me some logic and I'll give you a answer.  I thought you were asking 
> how Evolution produced consciousness but apparently that's not the question 
> you wanted answered. Maybe I missed it but as far as I can tell that's the 
> only question you asked. True you then said that Evolution could have 
> produced consciousness even if intelligence and consciousness were 
> unrelated because consciousness makes for better intelligent actions, which 
> is so self contradictory I didn't believe I needed to refute it. 
>

I don't know what you are talking about I didn't say any 
of these points. You may have more than  one discussion you are in mixed 
together there. 

I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect 
consciousness (because we can't, I think you said) u

What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of 
difference between the same traits in two individuals, if those traits are 
being selected. It doesn't matter something is physically buried in the 
brain, or undetectable by humans at the present time,. Natural Selection 
will just favour the more overall efficient traits for that purpose. The 
same goes for consciousness . 

What is the problem you have understanding which of your ideas I am 
referring to. This is you key big idea John. Your idea that evolution 
cannot detect consciousness. 

I refer to it explicitly in that first at the top. So you seem to be saying 
you don't know what my post is disproving and what idea of yours it refers 
to. Inspite of  the idea in question is your big idea that you've talked 
for ages. Inspite also of the fact I explicitly reference at the top of the 
first post. In spite of the fact the actual reason that you keep deleting 
also makes it pretty obvious what is being disproven 

> and you've deleted probably the most key section. 
>>
>
> And in this response to your latest post I deleted 6 paragraphs,
>

Why? When I stated you need all the reasoning in the same place so you 
understand and have the opportunity to come up with  answer that s strong.  
Why do something like that? It's inflammatory. You're not fussing around 
deleting peoples post. I've actually taken the trouble to refute something 
here. And actually asked you not to delete the argument which is short. 
Instead answer it. Do it inline if you want or at the bottom. But leave my 
argument there as well. So we don't have to do another round like this. 

Please. You know what idea is of yours. You know where my argument is. 
Please reply to my arugment and lesve it in so other people can see  what I 
do and what you do. Just in case one of us is playing with poo here. 

Come on don't fuck me around like this. I put effort in. About you or key 
idea. I'm just asking for a response I the normal way, that doesn't involve 
you deleting my argument and claiming you don't know what my argument is. 
Leaving it hard for me or anyone to compare and see. 

You don't do  this in any other interactions. 

And your big is squarely falsified john. Fair and square. Go to the post 
and give your counter argument if you have one. Like you do all your posts. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 4:37:40 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, > wrote:
>
> > Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that 
>> there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual 
>> fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's 
>> jump into the shoes of objective reality. 
>>
>
> OK but remember you said "objective reality", Evolution can't detect 
> subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see 
> actions but it can't see intentions.  And the more intelligent a animal's 
> actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next 
> generation.
>

 You are also not responding here, to the line above, but to the paragraph 
that came afterward. Which you have deleted. There is not redundancy for 
legitimate deletion of this kind. The argument is arranged through 
paragraphs with each paragraph containing ONE strong component of relevance 
with everything else just for illustrative purposes. It is obvious what the 
strong component is each paragraph. 

What was the strong component of relevance in the lines above? You  just 
have to ask what is necessary to preserve a logical flow through the 
points. The first paragraph just show differentials in consciousness are 
trivially demonstrated in any number of commonplace everyday examples. We 
don't even need to go to evolution. 



> > we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its 
>> delivery has been negatively impacted.
>>
>
> And the only way you or Evolution could have "happened to know" that is if 
> you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from 
> that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies 
>

You've deleted my argument John. And what you reply to here, just as what 
you replied to above, is totally irrelevant the logical argument that you 
are supposed to be trying to provide a strong answer to. I don't want to 
think. 

You've not answered the logic so far and you've deleted probably the most 
key section. You continued this basic approach below, but anyway it's lost 
be here so I've deleted below. 

Please, a strong answer John. You need a fresh reply command so you benefit 
from the full sequence of argument. Please...identify the strong component 
in each paragraph. By simply asking what component is essential to preserve 
a logical sequence. First paragraphs are always less essential because they 
introduce and so on. 

Give a strong answer as the rational man  of science you say, and I will  
nod - that you are. 

It's a 10 minute work at most John. Either you have a strong answer you do 
not. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:49:02 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing 
> mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.
>

It's a fact, Bruno's estimate levels are too low at present obviously 
reasonable & accepted

I wasn't avoiding comment on this. It's just that I think it's a 
possibility you may have lost the thread of what has been said. Easy to 
happen over a day and night. 

The recap is: 

-  data indicating the polar opposite of the expectation arising from 
incumbent knowledge

- early on you saw this was the implication rappeared to understand what 
issues were brought into play by that. 

- There's not a lot more that's in the logic, and first time next to say. 

- You are right first time round, the incumbent theory says diminishing 
dark matter reflects expansion of the universe. Or a galaxy. 

- But that has already been said now, explicitly or very directly by the 
implication of saying the same thing from the other direction, that the new 
data is saying dark matter diminishing reflects a contraction of the 
universe. Or a Galaxy. 

It's the polar opposite so saying one is saying the other. And it is for 
that reason I hesitate to reply because I don't know what new thing you 
wish to say. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:27:30 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb  > wrote:
>
> > More likely we will make an AI that is intelligent, is not conscious 
>> like a human with an inner narrative but is conscious in some other way 
>> which will be very difficult for us to recognize. 
>>
>
> With the obvious exception of our own, consciousness is not very difficult 
> to recognize, it is IMPOSSIBLE to recognize, and it doesn't matter if it's 
> another human or a computer. All we can recognize is intelligent behavior 
> and then try to make a conclusion from that observation using one of the 
> enumerable theories about consciousness that are available.  And all the 
> many consciousness theories are different from each other and all of them 
> work about equally well (or badly). And having no facts that must be fitted 
> to theory is why the profession of consciousness theoretician is so 
> incredibly easy and why they are so common on the internet. However it's 
> hard as hell to find a good intelligence theory because it must be 
> compatible with a astronomical number of very diverse facts, so it's not 
> surprising that intelligence theoreticians are very rare on the internet. 
> Consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard. 
>
>  John K Clark
>

You're still in the stack constructing from your idea evolution cannot 
detect conscious (I think because  we can't, is your basis for this, but no 
matter). 

It's very hard to see how your idea stands up to even the most high level 
and trivial thought experiment. So I'll select something like that for you 
give your high level answer. 

Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that there 
is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual fell off 
a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury.

Now let's jump into the shoes of objective reality. Now we are objective 
reality and as such we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious 
experience and its delivery has been negatively impacted. 

Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities with higher 
loading on the full suite of being conscious than some others. 

Let's now pick these two gentlemen up shove them through the door of 
Bruno's Tardis, and dump them somewhere sometime the forces of natural 
selection are considerably ramped up for and between humans. 

If that activity on the menu of the Challenge-of-the-Niche. Natural 
selection will favour the individual that does not have the efficiency 
shortfall in consciousness and its delivery.

Ergo consciousness has felt the long arm of natural selection poking right 
through with specific, precision interest in specific components, specially 
in terms of efficiency on some measure. And issued selective dictats 
accordingly. 

John you need a strong answer to this. It isn't legitimate to try to answer 
by quibbling details. Because there's infinitely many alternatice 
scenarios. 

Please, a strong answer. 


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:59:42 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> Al Hibbs, you have once again forgotten to uncheck the "cc to sender" 
> button before sending which is, as everyone knows, the clearest signal that 
> you are Al Hibbs since no one else who inhabits this list does that because 
> there is no need whatsoever for this. If you are not doing it 
> inadvertently, then you are merely wicked, which is another form of 
> Intelligence. Mr Intelligence Trap needs no evidence to substantiate his 
> theory other than to observe the highly intelligent yet erratic and 
> ill-considered behaviour of people like yourself who prove regularly (and 
> of course, inadvertently) that the Intelligence Trap is alive and kicking.
>

It's not personal Kim. I feel strongly about whatever I'm 
writing and haven't mastered staying on top of my emotions for the 
full monty. But listen...your behaviour is much worse, because you 
persistently express your frustration or pique or whatever that 
is where you go..by spelling out Al Hibbs...just like that. The fact you 
do it those times only is sufficient proof you know fully well you are 
seriously violate the expressed personal preference to maintain a synthetic 
layer of anonymity. 

You violate my personal boundary every time you do that. You have no clue 
what my reasons might be. You may have put me in harm's way. Perhaps I'm 
being stalked. Or maybe I'm hiding from an abusive estranged husband so get 
it right you personal space violation monger it's ALICIA. On the subject 
what's with the girl's name stuck on you? I thought were a woman right 
through to when I came back. You got a lot more slack due to that. You were 
disgusting in your treatment to me back then. You persistently issued 
fallacious assurances of neutrality, you exhibited absolutely zero self 
reflection even when the abject untruth of this I had to smear under your 
nose. You savagely attacked me out of nowhere multiply in a sequence 
despite clear efforts by me to de-escalate things. 

Then, when I actually left the list as an expression of courtesy and 
goodwill to you, expressly for that reason, explitly stated. You then 
followed up my departure by writing a post blatently impregnated with 
invective that everyone would recognize as targeted on me.

You've no class Kim. You're envious or bitter or I don't know what. You 
don't self reflect. You've got really unrealistic components in play in 
your self imaging. You are passive aggressive. In the subtitles there are 
demands for respect and acknowledgements and acts of deference for 
acccomplishments and status you haven't earned and frankly do not deserve. 
You are not an authority on creativity. You aren't a fair man. You play a 
spiteful mean little game with me from a position of complete security and 
group acceptance completely unthreatened by me as the outsider largely 
ignored that I freely choose to be.. You've no just cause, no recourse to 
real and real considerations of self defence. 

I speak my thoughts the way that I do. I'm prone to getting myself 
misunderstood. I live with that and self reflect about it and can see that 
on some level for some reason I do bring it on myself. I see it, so I'm 
calm with this and accepting. I have no ill feeling, and do not harbour 
grudges and resent no-one. And intend nothing personal to anyone. Save in 
the context, strictly that context, if there is a disagreement, about value 
and how high value is distinguished from low value in the world. 
That's a theme of the disagreement that I feel with basically the entire 
list, it's culture, it's behaviour, it's theories, beliefs,, backscratching 
and letting off the hook...and the ganging up that goes side by side when 
that sort o thing is present. The ganging up. The bullying, like the way 
you bully me. The way you violate my personal space, violate my anonymity 
brandish it, wave it about, through it at me, boomerangs spinning around my 
head like clubs. 

I don't what this buys for you, what imagery you get for this when you look 
in the mirror. But to my eye the imagery is of a weak man, who is 
sufferering now on the inside because of failure of courage basically more 
than anything else. You fail still now to have the courage to be decent. 
You are getting older Kim yet still you have confronted yourself and have 
not, may not even have begun, the process a lot of people complete while 
still young. That we exercise first the aspiration then the practice and 
then begin actually delivery in anger; of being no different in our conduct 
with others, regardless of whether we are in a position of strength and 
power or it's the other way around. Feeling little, and thinking little of, 
the expressions of others their sentiments and judgements about us. Same 
whether compliments and praise or criticisms and hostility. All of it is 
fickle and insincere, unless it is clearly measured and distinguishes 
traits and measured assessments tha

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:15:59 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Nov 2014, at 6:59 am, Kim Jones  > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On 27 Nov 2014, at 7:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the 
> competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever 
> student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get 
> stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no 
> problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve 
> problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one 
> will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in 
> trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in 
> the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, 
> with a proper justification. 
> > 
> > I cannot see how anyone could not go along with this. This is a 
> description of "The Intelligence Trap" 


For some the fact there's no evidence, and the fella behind "The 
Intelligence Trap" seems not to regard his theory as worth or in need of 
running a couple of studies. Despite the claims being fairly testable. 

There is some evidence high i.q. brains are more streamlined, with 
correspond loss of the mesh of pathways that otherwise would bulge out. 
Which could mean people with less high I.Q. do have a potential for 
uncovering strange/novel insights. 

It's plausible, but not as a counterweight to the relative disadvantage of 
a lower I.Q. But if there's a legitimate idea, there's a legitimate study 
that could shed some light on whether the idea is right. The fact Mr 
Intelligence Trap man pushes something as a theory and people 'cannot see 
how anyone would not go along with..." raises legitimate questions about 
why there's no effort at evidence.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:52:48 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
>
> On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed 
>>> galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational 
>>> evidence to support this.
>>>
>>
>> Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only valid one 
>> time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. 
>>
>
> I repeated it because the other poster ignored what I'd said the first 
> time AND made snarky comments showing he'd missed the point I was making, 
> hence I felt it was worthwhile repeating it.
>
> Anyway, the point still holds. Dark matter is responsible for much of the 
> structure of the universe, and if it's being turned into energy and 
> radiated away then its gravitational attraction goes with it. Hence 
> galaxies, held together by dark matter (as I Zwicky discovered in 1933 by 
> studying their rotation curves) should be expanding IF dark matter is being 
> annihilated, because the visible structure is rotating at the same speed 
> around a centre containing a decreasing amount of mass.
>
> So, if I've understood this theory correctly, galaxies should be getting 
> bigger. Can someone either explain how I've missed the point of the 
> theory OR tell me if there is evidence of galaxies growing larger due to 
> this effect? If not then I can happily forget this theory because it 
> predicts some startling observational evidence that doesn't exist. 
>


prediction: this won't be going awayit'll ramp up independent 
corroboration. The idea of denying the reality (if that's what it proves to 
be) based on observations about dark matter needing to evaporate with 
exploding galaxies, has comedic flair, but I fear may also be prophetic. 
It's easier than denying the collapse in the two slit :O)




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> LizR wrote: 
> > On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List 
> >  
> > > wrote: 
> > 
> > Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one 
> > aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are 
> > two or more types of entropy, therefore, there are at least two 
> > dimensions of time? 
> > 
> > Entropy is a large scale statistical effect (classically) and has no 
> > direct bearing on time. If it can be made more fundamental then perhaps, 
> > yes... 
>
> Entropy has a direct bearing on the direction of time via the second law 
> of thermodynamics. "The second law of thermodynamics states that in a 
> natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the 
> entropies of the participating systems." (Wikipedia). Increase is a 
> temporal statement. One could not state this law without reference to 
> the passage of time. The 'increasing' part gives the direction of time. 
>

Entropy has a unique expression for each context cropping up on a regular 
basis. Isn't that so? I thought the driver behind that was each context has 
some distinguishing feature that changes the intuitive approach to thinking 
about entropy. 

Like entropy for Chemistry. The mechanism tends to be chemical reactions, 
and the intuitive sequencing for that has the distinguishing feature of 
being scale invariant, more or less. So the intuitive direction is always 
to the maximum scale with the same bounds. So it tends to be about the law 
of finding the shortest path to the equilibrium.t How the approach is 
exponential. Because chemistry follows the same sequence at the same rate 
for the same initial conditions, the same for a 10m cubed section of...the 
surface of a planet or whatever...as the same structure up scale to the 
whole planet. 

Is that wrong? So anyway, entropy and disorder and 'states', 
thermodynamics, time (scale free means time invariant more or less). None 
of that gets mentioned at all in the most common reference. 

I appreciate nothing I say contradicts what you say...it's just that I feel 
that this is a really fundamental character to entropy. No one feels the 
same way it seemsI have mentioned this before but I don't think I ever 
get a reply.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:09:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Nov 2014, at 20:23, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 , Bruno Marchal > 
> wrote:
>
> > I agree that consciousness is not intelligence. 
>>
>
> I agree also. 
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> > An entity can be competent, without intelligence [...] An entity can be 
>> intelligent, without competence
>>
>
> I don't understand the distinction,  but I do know that competence means 
> having the skill and knowledge to get the job done, so what's the point of 
> "intelligence"? As far as survival is concerned (and getting genes into the 
> next generation is the only thing Evolution is concerned with) 
> Intelligence, whatever you mean by the word, would be as useless as 
> consciousness. So now you've doubled the number of mysteries you need to 
> explain, not only do you need to explain why Evolution invented 
> consciousness you can't even explain why it invented Intelligence. 
>
>
> You can think of intelligence like a potential, and competence like a 
> force. Competence would be like the derivative of intelligence. Of course 
> this is just an image. The idea is that intelligence is what allow 
> competence to be developed.
>

There's significant decoupling between these concepts. Most of the 
other working concepts in cognition are probably situated between these two 
:O) Being competent is being fit for purposemore at the task end of 
things. 

Obviously if you want to be a competent brain surgeon or astronaut I.Q.  
starts to come into its 15 minutes. 

I felt duty bound to science to support I.Q. science for years basically. 
Make it sound like a sacrifice because in some ways that's what it is. 
People obey political correctness over science. Like herebig debate 
about intelligence with lots of fragrance burning on the stick. That people 
hold their strong view as rational men of science. 

But actually people pretend science doesn't exist, and there isn't a 
science of intelligence. Not principle most cases, but fear. People know 
it's policed. They feel saying something in public could do them harm down 
the line. So they deny science. Just sayin'. 

But that having been said. I have recently discovered a fatal flaw in I.Q. 
science. Fatal. It's a remarkable thing actually..this particular kind 
of flaw. It's alive almost. Well, obviously not alive.but it behaves 
like it is alive. It will hide in the details and deploy misdirection. It 
will frame the good guy, and be like the darling of I.Q. those little 
whores of mensa (woody allen short story). Harden 'g', make it fit all the 
studies, correlate through multidimensional physical marker solidly 
invariant as a block. 

Yeahstraight up my dead parrot as my witness may the devil strike me 
dead. It's wot I saw...wriggling it was. Slithering. Look there I say. Look 
there if conscious intent what be seek..ing...ed...is you






>
>
> > I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence.
>>
>
> Then please do so. I'm all ears. 
>
>
> I have taught mathematics to mentally handicapped persons. Most look like 
> they were very dumb, and most did not have any competence in mathematics. 
> By being very patient, and by letting them use computer (which were very 
> new at that time), I was able to trig some motivation and interest among 
> some of them, and realized that those were intelligent, and than the lack 
> of competence came from their handicap.
>
> I tend to think that intelligence is a natural attribute of universal 
> machine. They can, in principle, learn everything learnable. But to develop 
> a competence, which is more like a manifested intelligence, they need 
> enough memories, and some training or programming.
>
> Sometimes I go farer, and define intelligence negatively: an entity is 
> intelligent if it does not utter stupidities. This is a *very* large 
> definition which makes pebbles intelligent (no one has ever heard a pebble 
> saying  a stupidity), but the pebbles is obviously incompetent (except in 
> finding the shortest path to the ground when being dropped).
>
> In all case the basic idea is that competence is an ability to solve 
> problem in some domain, and intelligence is the ability to develop that 
> competence. An old researcher can be very competent in his domain, but can 
> lack intelligence, as no more being able to augment its competence, or to 
> develop a new one. 
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this messag

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed 
> galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational 
> evidence to support this.
>

Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only valid one 
time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. 

Based on the current worldview, the idea of dark energy gobbling dark 
matter, causing expansion to slow down.is nonsensical. Can't be 
adjustedcan't be made into sense. 
 
Not without getting into significant levels of fussy details. Which cannot 
be done without large discoveries first that shed dramatic light on what 
dark matter and energy actually are. 

Not sensibly anyway (i.e. whatever fussy detailed explanation they create, 
there will be exponentially many other different and disagreeable 
explanations that are logically identical in terms of size and robustness 
of the necessary guesses, for each next level of detail necessary to go 
down, in order to fussy up the job. 

so it's a really huge issue. If it isn't correct, that'll show in the 
developments and no more will be said. But if this finding stubbornly 
sticks around, and then starts showing up in other independent ways. That 
then becomes the line too far.too far to patch the cosmological model 
up with more dark stuff. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:27:35 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 , LizR > wrote:
>
> > If intelligent behavior is not a test for consciousness then how do you 
>> know that such machines are not conscious? For that matter how do you know 
>> that a rock is not conscious but your fellow human beings are conscious 
>> when they're not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead? 
>>
>
> I have no doubt that you believe that your fellow human beings are 
> conscious when they are not in certain states, such as the state of being 
> asleep or the state of being under anesthesia, or the state of being dead. 
> I also have no doubt you believe  rocks are not conscious in every state 
> they are capable of being in. My question to you is if intelligent behavior 
> is not a test for consciousness then how did you make this determination? 
>
>  > On the balance of probabilities, however, I would say that rocks most 
>> likely aren't conscious, and that people probably are (when not asleep etc).
>>
>
> I believe that too, but then I think that intelligent behavior is the test 
> for consciousness, it's not a perfect test but it's the only test we have. 
>

Is that more accurate than saying "we do not have a test for consciousness" 
?

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> Isn't this news a few months old?
>

dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[zibbsey]

http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html

my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. 


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 5:59:56 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> zib...@gmail.com : 
>
> > But what is distinctive about your position, that would not be available 
>> if our knowledge of what intelligence was had not advanced? 
>>
>
> Perhaps a computer could but I'm only human and I don't understand the 
> question.
>
> > There's two logical explanations for your position. One of them is 
>> simply that you are saying what you would be saying if technology had 
>> advanced but the understanding of how to create A.I. had not. 
>>
>
> From a practical operational standpoint the important thing isn't how fast 
> humans are figuring out how intelligence works but how fast machines are 
> becoming intelligent. I think it very unlikely, probably impossible, that 
> any human being, or even any group of people, will ever have a deep 
> understanding of how the first human level AI works; but that doesn't mean 
> such machines won't get built, and in less than 50 years, possibly much 
> less.
>

I agree it can happen. But I think it's a hard problem that will need to be 
theory led. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:56:02 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014  Telmo Menezes > 
> wrote:
>
> > I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of 
>> defining intelligence is hand-waved. 
>>
>
> I wave my hand only to indicate the wide sweep of definitions of 
> intelligence you are free to use without one word of complaint from me.  
> Well... that isn't entirely true, there is one definition I would object 
> to, "intelligence is whatever computers arn't good at YET".  
>
> > I don't even ask for "any measure of intelligence", I would just ask you 
>> to name one.
>>
>
> I will name several: winning at checkers, winning at chess, winning at 
> Jeopardy, solving equations, driving a car, translating a language, 
> recognizing images, becoming the world's best research librarian. 
>  
>
>> > All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal 
>> of AI is to get a lot from a little.
>>
>
> A human translator can't get good at translating language X to Y unless he 
> hears a lot of both languages X and Y, and the same is true of computers.
>
>  > With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be 
>> taught how to drive a car. 
>>
>
> Computers can do both and subroutines exist so what's the problem?  
>
> > The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities is the smoking gun that 
>> the "intelligence" part of AI is not increasing.
>>
>
> A computer that beat the 2 best human players of Jeopardy on planet Earth 
> blew that argument into (sorry but I just have to say it) bits .  
>
> >> And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very 
>>> good translators by observing how great translators do it.
>>>
>>
>> > And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the 
>> same software.
>>
>
> I see no evidence that humans use the same mental software to translate 
> languages, solve differential equations, walk and chew gum at the same time,
> and write about philosophy on the internet;  I think humans use different 
> subroutines for different tasks just as computers do.
>
> >> Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines 
>>> become better at there job than any human; and I predict  that the next 
>>> time it happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did 
>>> and say "Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or 
>>> physicists than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame 
>>> excuse here)".
>>>
>>
>> > I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the 
>> argument I'm in until I see these "surgeons", "joke writers" or 
>> "physicists" that you talk about.
>>
>
> That just means you are a reasonable man. The people who exasperate me are 
> those who say that even though X does very intelligent things that doesn't 
> mean that X is intelligent. My point is that I don't believe in magic so I 
> think that all the brilliant things humans have done over the last few 
> thousand years happened because of the way the atoms in the 3 pounds of 
> grey goo inside their bone box were organized, and so there is no reason 
> that other things, like computers, couldn't be as intelligent or more so if 
> they were organized in the right way.   
>
>   John K Clark 
>

But what is distinctive about your position, that would not be available 
if our knowledge of what intelligence was had not advanced? 

There's two logical explanations for your position. One of them is simply 
that you are saying what you would be saying if technology had advanced but 
the understanding of how to create A.I. had not. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 11:56:24 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:45 AM, John Clark  > wrote:
>
>>
>> > A.I. is no closer than  it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. 
>>>
>>
>> Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent 
>> than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to 
>> name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day 
>> than we were 20 years ago.
>>
>
> I am not opposed to this idea, but as usual the very hard problem of 
> defining intelligence is hand-waved. I don't even ask for "any measure of 
> intelligence", I would just ask you to name one.
>  
>
>>
>> > But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve 
>>> theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired 
>>> data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how 
>>> translation services work.
>>>
>>
>> Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires 
>> intelligence,  so why in the world isn't that AI.
>>
>
> My PhD advisor used to say something along these lines:
> All the AI we have so far gives as a little from a lot. The real goal of 
> AI is to get a lot from a little.
>  
> I think he also stole this from someone, not sure who though.
>
> With what I consider real AI, an artificial translator could also be 
> taught how to drive a car. The extreme compartmentalisation of capabilities 
> is the smoking gun that the "intelligence" part of AI is not increasing. I 
> am aware that I am being hypocritical in that I am appealing to something 
> that I just said I don't know how to define.
>
>
>>
>> > Big Data does not involve theories of A.I
>>>
>>
>> I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand 
>> equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and 
>> kludges that all add up to something big.
>>
>
> I agree.
>  
>
>>
>> >  It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence 
>>> components, simply rehashed for  best fit 
>>>
>>
>> Simply? Is convoluted better than simple?  Are you saying that if we can 
>> explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? 
>>
>> > It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which 
>>> would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any 
>>> point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations 
>>> performed by human translators. 
>>>
>>
>> And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good 
>> translators by observing how great translators do it.
>>
>
> And they can also do this for a number of different skills with the same 
> software.
>

Well, maybe. But this doesn't address the argument that the guy in the 
video presented. He wasn't talking about mediocre translators being 
squeezed out. He was talking about them being squeezed in. 

The reason the scrapes need to happen each next day or whenever, is because 
language moves on. New colloquialism. New urban meaning. New local meaning. 
New precedent. New words are included in the dictionary each year. But 
dictionary meaning doesn't work for these big data algorithms. It's usage. 
So it isn't about getting better as a translator. It's simply that these 
algorithms cannot learn. 

 

>  
>
>>
>>
>> > Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to 
>>> be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there 
>>> isn't. 
>>>
>>
>> Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become 
>> better at there job than any human; and I predict  that the next time it 
>> happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say 
>> "Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists 
>> than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here)".
>>
>
> I am sure of that too, but I reserve my decision on which side of the 
> argument I'm in until I see these "surgeons", "joke writers" or 
> "physicists" that you talk about.
>

Good to know. The article of evidence I have for you. Is...let's say no one 
had a clue what A.I. was supposed to mean. But the technology revolution 
had brought us thus far. Would the sort of explanations john Clarke offers 
for what A.I. and intelligence means, be showing up just the same? I think 
if we knew no more than we did 30 years ago, people would be coming up 
exactly the same arguments that Clark (and many others) construct. 

Therefore unless you can argue why that argument wouldn't be available 
without knowledge having advanced, surely my explanation is the simpler 
than his, for his own argument? 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everyth

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> LizR wrote: 
> > On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist   
> > > wrote: 
> > 
> > Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy. 
> > 
> > I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, 
> > or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can 
> grasp? 
>
> If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin 
> projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the 
> particle still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if 
> there are two possible spin states, then you have created two worlds, 
> each of which has all the energy of the original. That is the sense in 
> which energy is not conserved. 
>
> The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it, 
> is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the 
> daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability 
> of spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result 
> 'up', the probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy 
> could have been expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization 
> restores this to 100% in each world. 
>

 

>
> If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a 
> stretch. 
>

exactly 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 24, 2014 6:45:22 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> > A.I. is no closer than  it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. 
>>
>
> Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent 
> than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to 
> name. And I am even more certain that we are 20 years closer to that day 
> than we were 20 years ago.
>
> > But what is new and big is Big Data. But Big Data does not involve 
>> theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking very large sets of paired 
>> data and converging by some basic rule to a single thing. This is how 
>> translation services work.
>>
>
> Well... Big Data computers are artificial and good translation requires 
> intelligence,  so why in the world isn't that AI.
>
> > Big Data does not involve theories of A.I
>>
>
> I think it very unlikely that the secret to intelligence is some grand 
> equation you could put on a teashirt, it's probably 1001 little hacks and 
> kludges that all add up to something big.  
>
> >  It's very large sets of translations of sentences, and sentence 
>> components, simply rehashed for  best fit 
>>
>
> Simply? Is convoluted better than simple?  Are you saying that if we can 
> explain how it works then it can't be intelligent? 
>
> > It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which 
>> would be great, except this: The Big Data system is not independent at any 
>> point. Every day there needs to be a huge scrape of the translations 
>> performed by human translators. 
>>
>
> And human beings move from being mediocre translators to being very good 
> translators by observing how great translators do it.
>
> > Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to 
>> be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there 
>> isn't. 
>>
>
> Translation certainly won't be the last profession where machines become 
> better at there job than any human; and I predict  that the next time it 
> happens somebody will try to find a excuse for it just like you did and say 
> "Yes a machine is a better poet or surgeon or joke writer or physicists 
> than I am but it doesn't really count because (insert lame excuse here)".
>
>   John K Clark
>

Please address the strong points in the argument and deal with it there. It 
isn't interesting to me or you, if this is simply about holding your 
previous position invariant and shifting everything else accordingly.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds 
>>> may be testable.
>>>  
>>> “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of 
>>> Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are 
>>> ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the 
>>> beginning of time. “
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, to be sure, this is how Deutsch interprets Everett. Me too, even 
>>> for computationalism, where I sum up this by the Y = II rule. The 
>>> mutiplication (Y)  in the future duplicate the past (Y becomes II). 
>>>
>>
>> I once asked you if you shared Deutsch's interpretation of the MWI in 
>> terms of fungible worlds divergent by decoherance, but otherwise 
>> invariant in all dimensions a frozen structure, every thing that ever has, 
>> and ever will, ever can occur, frozen in little multidimensional capsule.
>>
>
> That is exactly how I see it. From computationalism, everything that can 
> possibly happen can be computed ahead of time
> in a deterministic block multiverse. No need for time, energy or matter- 
> it is entirely mathematical- a 4 dimensional math space (actually pops out 
> of my metaverse` string cosmology). In a deterministic universe 
> consciousness and free will seem to also not be needed. But once the 
> quantum mechanics of energy and matter, along with conservation of 
> mass/energy are introduced, the multiverse becomes unique. That's what 
> physics says. But lately, a strong dose of entanglement is thought to be 
> needed to change quantum probabilities into statistical mechanics, the 
> basis of ordinary thermodynamics.
> Richard
>  
>
>>
>> You said you didn't, you saw it differently. I forget precisely what and 
>> how. Have you changed your mind at a point between? What was the crucial 
>> shift that fundamentally changed the picture for you? 
>>
>> Perhaps you are now closely enough aligned with him that you will answer 
>> the question that he will not despite many times my asking. 
>>
>> Deutsch explains in BoI chapter "The Reality of Abstractions" that 
>> abstractions have physical reality independent of dependence of emergent 
>> features from underlying, increasingly physical layers
>>
>> So, given independence, that is causal isolation, what is the physical 
>> mechanism by which decoherence at the quantum level, will trigger 
>> divergence, and divergence will replicate abstract layers that are 
>> independent of quantum forces? 
>>
>> How does that happen? And if it doesn't happen precisely every single 
>> time, how can macroscopic reality be stable? Cause and effect would never 
>> endure
>>
>> Second challenge: If the two slit experiment is explained by divergent 
>> universes, then the pattern we see in the interval of 'collapse' is 
>> therefore the momentary isolation of just this universe as all the others 
>> diverge. 
>>
>> Which means it should be distinctive in its own right, from what we shall 
>> see as the pattern in 'one slit' experiment. 
>> Is it? I shall bet it is indistinguishable.
>>
>
> The one-slit pattern is a smear with perhaps some diffraction oscillations 
> on the fringe of the smear.
> The double-slit experiment shows a very distinctive interference pattern 
> instead and in place of the smear.
>

I don't agree. There must be an interference at this level. It just take 
place at a resolution or displacement (i.e. dimensionality) that isn't 
obvious and/or a non-trivial analytical problem teasing out. But it will be 
there. The carry-on by infinity theorists that it is not stands directly in 
contradiction of the current lynchpin for why a multiverse is...IS 
QM...and QM isMULTIVERSE(taken seriously you see). That would 
be the invariant universality of the wave function. 

At all scales, levels, universes and sensesexcept the one 
slit experiment where it isn't. That's actually a wave function 
collapse event too, you know.

>  
>
>>
>> Then, is the one slit experiment isolating this universe in some way? 
>>
>
> There are an infinity of other universes in the one-slit experiment.
> But say the incident photon has a certain frequency, that is a fixed 
> energy.
> The detection screen then records only one photon of the same frequency 
> and same energy.
> Thereby quantum collapse ensures conservation of energy.
> The infinite number of other worlds still exist mathematically in the Math 
> Space of the block multiverse...
> But a recalculation, like making a wrong turn, must be done in Math Space 
> to account for quantum collapse.
> The need for continual recalculations may be the foundation of time.
> Richard
>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are s

Re: Universal Inflation

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:06:47 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal > 
> wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> I wonder if by now it's worth considering in information-theoretic terms 
> how the evolution of "academe" tends to result in universes in which most 
> and possibly all information becomes increasingly self-referential and 
> redundant ie uncreative. I don't know if the current "scandal" involving 
> the massive fraud in student assignments to which most Oz unis have turned 
> a blind eye -  and presumably will continue to self-servingly turn a blind 
> eye - fascinates you, but I can't help thinking this kind of thing 
> necessarily results somehow. Has this ever happened before in history? I 
> mean, when before has an entire (usually non-anglo)
>
>
> I should perhaps have written "English as a second language students"
>
>
> student cohort been able to get someone else to write their assignment, 
> pass their course - even though they might have difficulty sitting a basic 
> English test - and collect their degree? Is it the Anthropic Principle? 
> It's definitely inflation of one sort or another. The reason it's inflation 
> is because it introduces the incentive to keep pushing the academic ceiling 
> of "qualifiability" for this or that profession higher to allow the 
> universities to charge ever higher fees amongst a clearly openly cheating 
> student population. Maybe Darwin has the answer. But it also means that a 
> PhD is increasingly a meaningless bauble. It also means via MWI that 
> because it is possible it has already happened, therefore we should 
> acknowledge that at times throughout history there is a "brake" applied to 
> the anthropic gathering of knowledge by system-cheats.
>
> Question: in evolutionary terms, what is a "system-cheat"? Shouldn't we be 
> studying this more? There is a clear advantage in being one...
>
>
> Would you count the fact that some spider get disguised into ants to avoid 
> some bird predator as a system-cheat, or a natural lies. It communicates 
> the lies of the spider: "no, I am not that delicious spider dinner that you 
> love so much, I am that disgusting unswallowable ants you would not eat 
> even if getting paid". It works, the bird avoid them.
>
> Yes, the parts of the lies the creation is not known. Are we, as Löbian 
> person, descendant of PA + consistent(PA), pr PA + non-consistent(PA)?
>
> Sometimes I tend to feel like those who believe in actual infinities might 
> be descendent of PA + non-consistent PA.
>
> Eric Vandenbussche solved the problem of showing that[ PA + 
> non-consistent(PA)] proves not just not more theorems than PA, (as is well 
> known by logicians) but even more interesting problems, basically like PA + 
> con(PA). 
>
> Incompleteness entails, for the machines (and many non-machine reasonable 
> extensions) a big gap between proof and truth, but this propagates at 
> deeper (looking more concrete from inside) level, and being on the side of 
> truth (that is of searching the truth) might be an handicap in real life.
> (Like in the physicists'  "joke": a physicist looks anxious and sad, and 
> his colleague ask him why. He answered that his best student was trying to 
> understand quantum mechanics. The colleagues replied something like "I 
> understand you, he is on a very slope if not finished. It is a joke which 
> happened many times.
>
> In arithmetic There are many intermediate gods in between the machine and 
> truth, and some are devils (falsities) which can nevertheless imitates God 
> perfectly ... relatively to us. They make the measure problem more complex, 
> especially near (relative) death.
>
> As a platonist-friendly, I still believe in the benefits of lies 
> reduction, like I believe in the harm reduction philosophy in the health 
> and risk domain.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> OK - but where we are talking about universities passing en masse students 
> who have not qualified to pass but rather paid someone else to do their 
> assignment work, a syndrome that has persisted for some time and which is 
> now openly acknowledged with a shrug of the shoulders? What kind of values 
> are in operation here? The degree of fraud now taken for granted in the 
> knowledge generation industry seems to be a genuine cause for comcern. Who 
> is more at fault? Those who cheat the system or the guardians of the system 
> allowing it to be rorted? In a system where everyone passes and no one 
> fails, this is an easy way to keep the academics employed and does seem 
>  the unspoken reason behind this, particularly at a time when governments 
> (at least in Australia) is seeking to divest itself of the economic burden 
> of funding of universities. This is institutionalised dishonesty and surely 
> compromises the integrity of all academe. I don't hear too much weeping and 
> wailing going on! 
>

 You're right imho in what you describe. But something approachi

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:39:14 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.

>>>
>>> I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't 
>>> matter if the humans on the Supreme Court consider computers to be people 
>>> or not, the important thing is if computers consider humans to be people or 
>>> not.
>>>
>>> Making certain probably reasonable assumptions, that is quite likely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only if we remember that money is a tool, and not a goal. If money is the 
>> goal, machines will correctly conclude that humans are not affordable: they 
>> need 02, plants, a very rich and complex environment, etc. But with some 
>> luck we will be digital before, and get more affordable in the machine's 
>> point of view.
>>
>> To say that corporation are person is, imo, a rather big error. Only 
>> machine having the Löbian ability can be considered as person, and 
>> corporations are not.
>>
>>
> What he said that was most new for me was, the supreme court may decide 
> corporations are individuals or not, but that algorithms increasingly 
> define corporations, and what those programs do, they have not say over at 
> all. 
>
> The damaging mythology was the way a small cadre of 
> technologist-computationalist-futurist self-reinforce themselves into an 
> unchallenged space of defining the vision for A.I. in wholly positive and 
> historical inevitable terms. A.I. is coming, it's here now, it's going to 
> change everything, it'll be better, it'll be the better version of us even. 
>
> Which gets the same structure of delayed response that ultimately because 
> dominated by the merchants of doom who think this is going to end badly, 
> either A.I. here, or alien A.I. Which reinforces the next version of the 
> same version of the positive cadre emitted before. It becomes invariant. 
>
> Which would be fine, but neither one of the scenarios are anything like 
> reflective of what is taking place on the ground. A.I. is no closer than  
> it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But 
> Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking 
> very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a 
> single thing. This is how translation services work. It's very large sets 
> of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for  
> best fit to the text in translation. 
>

It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which would 
be great, except this: 

-- The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there 
needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human 
translators. 

-- Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to 
be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there 
isn't. Now, there isn't even a diary scheduling up coming translation 
contracts, the requirements and the research project timelines that there 
used to be. Now it's much more a 'realtime' industry. You be available and 
up to date. You be available first for a job if one comes up. It might. Or 
it might not, today. It's back to hand to mouth for them. 

-- which would be a case of "so...wheels of changerelocate, retrain, 
already". Save, the Big Data that has brought this about - the algorithm 
defining the corporation, cannot operate unless those translators stay in 
post. The Big Data system takes from them every day, but does not ask or 
receive permission, and does not pay them, and by another draft under the 
floorboards sucks their years coming specialism away..and their dreams and 
life-plan. 

The other salient insight he mentioned was that Big Data, such as it is, is 
most easily established in those transactions that naturally involve a 
degree of manipulation. Seduction, misdirectionlike dating sites. Or 
personal activities in the real and cyber/financial landscape of servicing 
consumption. The shopping trail. Browsers, footprints. 

Because manipulating behaviour in complex ways is something Big Data is 
well positioned to do. It can learn...purely from statistical modelling and 
the daily scrape. A.I. you can forget about until there's a little new 
progress. But corporate algorithms that synthetically  mirror intelligent 
behaviour, specifically around convergences relating to human malleability 
is a serious issue that is not understood and needs to be now. Because at 
present, what those algorithms are given to do, is suck the life out of 
structured professions with reward pathways for hard work, gift and skill. 

And what they are ABLE to do, and have a vested real and present critical 
interest that it be done, so are 

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
>
> On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, > wrote:
>>
>> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.
>>>
>>
>> I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't 
>> matter if the humans on the Supreme Court consider computers to be people 
>> or not, the important thing is if computers consider humans to be people or 
>> not.
>>
>> Making certain probably reasonable assumptions, that is quite likely.
>
>
>
> Only if we remember that money is a tool, and not a goal. If money is the 
> goal, machines will correctly conclude that humans are not affordable: they 
> need 02, plants, a very rich and complex environment, etc. But with some 
> luck we will be digital before, and get more affordable in the machine's 
> point of view.
>
> To say that corporation are person is, imo, a rather big error. Only 
> machine having the Löbian ability can be considered as person, and 
> corporations are not.
>
>
What he said that was most new for me was, the supreme court may decide 
corporations are individuals or not, but that algorithms increasingly 
define corporations, and what those programs do, they have not say over at 
all. 

The damaging mythology was the way a small cadre of 
technologist-computationalist-futurist self-reinforce themselves into an 
unchallenged space of defining the vision for A.I. in wholly positive and 
historical inevitable terms. A.I. is coming, it's here now, it's going to 
change everything, it'll be better, it'll be the better version of us even. 

Which gets the same structure of delayed response that ultimately because 
dominated by the merchants of doom who think this is going to end badly, 
either A.I. here, or alien A.I. Which reinforces the next version of the 
same version of the positive cadre emitted before. It becomes invariant. 

Which would be fine, but neither one of the scenarios are anything like 
reflective of what is taking place on the ground. A.I. is no closer than  
it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But 
Big Data does not in onvolve   

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds 
> may be testable.
>  
> “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of 
> Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are 
> ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the 
> beginning of time. “
>  
>
>
>
> Well, to be sure, this is how Deutsch interprets Everett. Me too, even for 
> computationalism, where I sum up this by the Y = II rule. The mutiplication 
> (Y)  in the future duplicate the past (Y becomes II). 
>

I once asked you if you shared Deutsch's interpretation of the MWI in terms 
of fungible worlds divergent by decoherance, but otherwise invariant in all 
dimensions a frozen structure, every thing that ever has, and ever 
will, ever can occur, frozen in little multidimensional capsule. 

You said you didn't, you saw it differently. I forget precisely what and 
how. Have you changed your mind at a point between? What was the crucial 
shift that fundamentally changed the picture for you? 

Perhaps you are now closely enough aligned with him that you will answer 
the question that he will not despite many times my asking. 

Deutsch explains in BoI chapter "The Reality of Abstractions" that 
abstractions have physical reality independent of dependence of emergent 
features from underlying, increasingly physical layers

So, given independence, that is causal isolation, what is the physical 
mechanism by which decoherence at the quantum level, will trigger 
divergence, and divergence will replicate abstract layers that are 
independent of quantum forces? 

How does that happen? And if it doesn't happen precisely every single time, 
how can macroscopic reality be stable? Cause and effect would never endure

Second challenge: If the two slit experiment is explained by divergent 
universes, then the pattern we see in the interval of 'collapse' is 
therefore the momentary isolation of just this universe as all the others 
diverge. 

Which means it should be distinctive in its own right, from what we shall 
see as the pattern in 'one slit' experiment. 
Is it? I shall bet it is indistinguishable. 

Then, is the one slit experiment isolating this universe in some way? 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 7:32:23 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds 
> may be testable.
>
>  
>
> “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of 
> Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are 
> ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the 
> beginning of time. “
>
>  
>
> Regarding the interference patterns detected by the single electron double 
> slit experiment (first performed in 1974 at University of Bologna) 
>
>  
>
> According to Wiseman and his team this interaction between parallel worlds 
> leads to just the type of interference patterns observed – implying 
> electrons are not waves after all. They have supported their theory by 
> running computer simulations of the two-slit experiment using up to 41 
> interacting worlds. “It certainly captured the essential features of peaks 
> and troughs in the right places,” says Wiseman.
>
>  
>
> https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/can-we-test-parallel-world 
>

Deutsch has priority on this idea. 
 

>  
>
 
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:08:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 05:06, zib...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zib...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of 
>>> > > the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the 
>>> > > Hamiltonian is Hermitian. 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > So conservation of energy is a concept that undergoes complex 
>>> translations 
>>> > to something completely different. And 'locality' is the concept that 
>>> has 
>>> > to have a  1:1 mapping from QM one world to the other. And of course 
>>> that 
>>> > selection of that 1:1 mapping is the only reason we need to have a 
>>> > multiverse with the properties it has. That mapping decision. 
>>> > 
>>> > So what is the reasoning why locality has to be mapped as that, and 
>>> > conservation of energy is good to map to alien structure. 
>>> > 
>>> > There isn't a reasoning Russell is there? It's just an arbitrary 
>>> > preference, or more feasibly it's just what happens to be 'intuitive'. 
>>
>>
> p.s. 
>
>>
>>>
>>> Conservation of energy is a consequence of Emmy Noether's theorem 
>>> relating time translation invariance to energy conservation. 
>>>
>>
> a relation in a theorem doesn't advance the theorem. Conservation of 
> energy derives all kinds of ways I think. The value of the theorem is not 
> advanced by this. Because it can come about trivially. I'm sure it doesn't 
> here, but it isn't difficult to envisage trivial translations of something 
> conserved stepwise which is what invariance would be doing, to something 
> else conserved block-wise. 
>
>>
>>> The equivalent theorem in the quantum setting derives unitarity of the 
>>> SE from time translation invariance.
>>
>>
> I don't know the equation, but is this derivation one that 
> involves establishing the linearity of the qm equation first? 
>
> Does the unitarity of the SE if assumed correct rule out the wave function 
> collapse that is empirically observed? 
>
>
> The collapse is not empirically observed. It could be a first person 
> plural differentiation. The "Schroedinger kittens" experience are very 
> often presented as en empirical confirmation of the collapse, but in the 
> MW, they are seen as seeing the splitting/differentiation.
>

It's observed empirically by any definition of those words and the place in 
scientific method at any time anywhere not near infinity 
theories qm interpretations that need what is observed to not be there. 

I've observed. I've predicted and examined it. I can tell you exactly when 
it will happen for a given apparatus. 

Above you define what is empirical observation to exclude what you don't 
want. Below you define progress then claim it. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zib...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of 
>> > > the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the 
>> > > Hamiltonian is Hermitian. 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > So conservation of energy is a concept that undergoes complex 
>> translations 
>> > to something completely different. And 'locality' is the concept that 
>> has 
>> > to have a  1:1 mapping from QM one world to the other. And of course 
>> that 
>> > selection of that 1:1 mapping is the only reason we need to have a 
>> > multiverse with the properties it has. That mapping decision. 
>> > 
>> > So what is the reasoning why locality has to be mapped as that, and 
>> > conservation of energy is good to map to alien structure. 
>> > 
>> > There isn't a reasoning Russell is there? It's just an arbitrary 
>> > preference, or more feasibly it's just what happens to be 'intuitive'. 
>
>
p.s. 

>
>>
>> Conservation of energy is a consequence of Emmy Noether's theorem 
>> relating time translation invariance to energy conservation. 
>>
>
a relation in a theorem doesn't advance the theorem. Conservation of energy 
derives all kinds of ways I think. The value of the theorem is not advanced 
by this. Because it can come about trivially. I'm sure it doesn't here, but 
it isn't difficult to envisage trivial translations of something conserved 
stepwise which is what invariance would be doing, to something else 
conserved block-wise. 

>
>> The equivalent theorem in the quantum setting derives unitarity of the 
>> SE from time translation invariance.
>
>
I don't know the equation, but is this derivation one that 
involves establishing the linearity of the qm equation first? 

Does the unitarity of the SE if assumed correct rule out the wave function 
collapse that is empirically observed? Even if assumed correct it doesn't. 
Because at different scales a continuous conception can be discrete, and 
vice verca. Digital is analogue at another level. Everything is quanta yet 
porcelain is smooth. Nothing is settled by this, unless there is an 
additional proof that there  be no finer structure involving breaks. 

Another problem is that energy is conserve in discrete units. Where does 
that feature get eliminated? 

So we've still got the collapse in play even on the strongest form here. 
But take away the assumption of correctness and we are back to an empirial 
observation that is repeated countless times, can be predicted, and so on. 

There are no credible grounds to over ride something like that on the 
strength of a theorem that says something should be linear or whatever. 
What is ohbseved robustly is not trumped easily. You'd need extraordinary 
evidence and proof. And a knock down better sciene that followed, that 
science advanced and more high potential and in a higher gear. 

These theories Russell sterilize Science. And have left it stalled for more 
than 50 years. Nothing has been advanced. As a result everything is ginding 
to a halt. Everything. 
Because for 50 years empirical approaches have kept it all going. But they 
start to get runaway complexity and unresolved disagreements in fields 
start to fracture fields apart. Empiricism is going to stop or stop adding 
value unless big breathrough theory starts appearing again. That drive 
predictions through the levels and clean the house. 

So that's what we're getting for this tiny little argument. Empirical 
observed phenomena dismissed. Muliverses put in place. Science ground to a 
halt. No sign of things getting other than worse ahead. Nice. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zib...@gmail.com  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of 
> > > the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the 
> > > Hamiltonian is Hermitian. 
> > > 
> > 
> > So conservation of energy is a concept that undergoes complex 
> translations 
> > to something completely different. And 'locality' is the concept that 
> has 
> > to have a  1:1 mapping from QM one world to the other. And of course 
> that 
> > selection of that 1:1 mapping is the only reason we need to have a 
> > multiverse with the properties it has. That mapping decision. 
> > 
> > So what is the reasoning why locality has to be mapped as that, and 
> > conservation of energy is good to map to alien structure. 
> > 
> > There isn't a reasoning Russell is there? It's just an arbitrary 
> > preference, or more feasibly it's just what happens to be 'intuitive'. 
>
> Conservation of energy is a consequence of Emmy Noether's theorem 
> relating time translation invariance to energy conservation. 
>
> The equivalent theorem in the quantum setting derives unitarity of the 
> SE from time translation invariance. See Vic Stenger's "Comprehensible 
> Cosmos" for details. 
>
> These facts have all been mentioned earlier on this thread, and 
> numerous times on this list over the years... I didn't 
> think I needed to spell them out again. 
>
> > 
> > Another arbitrary link is conservation of energy to the wave particle 
> that 
> > way. You only say that because, again, INTUITIVELY there is sorta kinda 
> a 
> > parallel. 
>
> I don't think I said anything like that... Sorry, that doesn't make sense. 
>
> > You'll have nothing more..no derivation. No proof that this the 
> > is the mapping as proof it can't be the set of all the others. 
> > 
> > Tell me this. In science it is normal to expect that it is possible to 
> > derive the general form of a set of equations that represent some 
> partial 
> > form, just so long as those equations are known, the sense in which 
> > partiality, and the translation logic to the multiverse. 
> > 
>
> Sorry - you'll need to clarify what you mean here. What is "some 
> partial form". What is a "translation logic"? 
>
> > How come none of you can do this work? Or have even tried? 
>
> We'll let you know once we know what the "work" is. 
>
> I definitely had that coming, well deserved, lovely delivered :o) 

I regretted sending it once I had. Infinity based envisioning I receive as 
waste. Normally I ignore the experience, don't wish to shit on other 
peoples shoes. But in some cases I can't manage the feelings...if there's 
potential evident that gets burned up in the process that could have gone 
to good.

With the nastiness apologized for, I don't think what I was talking about 
is beyond recovery at the receiver end. doesn't make it worthwhile for you 
to bother doing. I'd recommend not to bother. Because all it's going to get 
you is that I totally reject the legitimacy of what people at the edge of 
knowledge that were entrusted with the health wellbeing and fate of Science 
have...now done. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:04:29 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> Zipsey,
>
> If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read 
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
> clem
>

Thanks for that. It's good work. A classic case of how Science to now has 
succeeded. The theory is good and robust. Backs off onto good robust 
foundations. All of it totally wrong but nevertheless directly connected 
with objective reality as if they had been correct theories. All very 
mysterious. Unless you happen to be in my strange circumstances. I know 
already how they communicate and what drives the evolution of that. And 
what it means and how it affects us. 

I know this, the same way I know their theory is wrong yet objectively 
wired as true. All of these things I know because I have access to a medium 
of knowledge that no one else on Earth has. The medium is knowledge - 
objectively true knowledge - with the power to inform me whether or not I 
am bullshitting out a shaggy story.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Methusalem problem for MWI?

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 8:22:37 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 11/15/2014 10:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
>  
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM, > wrote:
>   
>
>>  > photosynthesis in this universe always finds the most efficient 
>> path where there are many others. 
>>  
>
>  That is incorrect. Using natural sunlight the maximum theoretical 
> efficiency in turning water and CO2 into glucose and free oxygen 
> (photosynthesis) is 11%. For real plants the specific biochemical steps 
> used varies according to species and so the efficiency ranges from 3 to 6%, 
> nowhere near the maximum. But this shouldn't be surprising, Evolution never 
> finds the perfect solution to a problem because it doesn't need to, it just 
> needs to find a solution that's better than the competition. 
>
>  

>  By the way, typical solar cells are about 20% efficient, and some very 
> exotic (and very expensive) ones can reach 40%.  
>   
>
> Or even not so exotic solar-thermal power stations which can reach 48%.
>
> 
>
Yes but... 

>
>   Which just goes to show that human intelligent design beats the hell 
> out of random mutation and natural selection even though it had 4 billion 
> years to work on the problem and we've only been working on it for a decade 
> or two.
>
>
Actually this is invalid. 

Grounds being very logical and very standard. But context being very hard 
to parse in logic. 

More familiar contexts are resolved with linguistic supports, such as 
common-expressions like clichés can be. 

"apples and pears", "all else being equal" / "all else here not being 
equal",  arbitrary terms of reference, cherry picking. 

Basically a selection is made from the life domain, effectively on 
arbitrary terms. A selection is made from human domain effectively on 
arbitrary terms; and a comparison follows that is therefore also on 
arbitrary terms. 

And the value of that old boy is arbitrarily settled, in this case 
probably in a cloud of commonly shared vaguely uninterested distraction.  


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:36:57 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> > "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is" 
>>> isn't the usual formulation
>>
>>
>> If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of 
>> microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to 
>> the number of precursor states.
>>
>> > and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many 
>>> possible histories and different possible starting points. 
>>>
>>
>> Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not 
>> arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present 
>> state, just a astronomical number.
>>
>> > Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible 
>>> states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total 
>>> kinetic energy
>>>
>>
>> Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of 
>> gas may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving 
>> around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions, 
>> Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into 
>> moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the 
>> less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink
>>
>> > In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining 
>>> parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. 
>>>
>>
>> Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe, just 
>> 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but there 
>> are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed, perhaps 
>> it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or 
>> encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why 
>> Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.  
>>
>
>  Would you help me to understand this? 
>
> It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have 
> formed as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of 
> information deficit across the event horizon. 
>
> Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat 
> eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed, 
> by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half 
> what it did to start with. 
>

Isn't this an approach on what Susskind contributes as the holographic 
principle (or as what then leads to that) 

Along with the time invariant term in that equation...that has the outside 
observer see the falling man freeze at the event horizon as a badly mangled 
splodge of subatomic fragmentation. 

That then acts as the informational record of everything that goes inside. 
Which makes Hawking look like a right plum circa 1985


 
>
>
>
>  
>
>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems 
>> to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.
>>
>>>
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  > wrote:
>
> > "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is" 
>> isn't the usual formulation
>
>
> If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of 
> microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to 
> the number of precursor states.
>
> > and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many 
>> possible histories and different possible starting points. 
>>
>
> Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not 
> arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present 
> state, just a astronomical number.
>
> > Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible 
>> states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total 
>> kinetic energy
>>
>
> Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of gas 
> may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving 
> around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions, 
> Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into 
> moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the 
> less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink
>
> > In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining 
>> parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. 
>>
>
> Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe, just 
> 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but there 
> are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed, perhaps 
> it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or 
> encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why 
> Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.  
>

 Would you help me to understand this? 

It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have formed 
as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of information 
deficit across the event horizon. 

Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat 
eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed, 
by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half 
what it did to start with. 
 



 

  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems 
> to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.
>
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Methusalem problem for MWI?

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 6:25:37 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM, > wrote:
>  
>
>> > photosynthesis in this universe always finds the most efficient 
>> path where there are many others. 
>>
>
> That is incorrect. Using natural sunlight the maximum theoretical 
> efficiency in turning water and CO2 into glucose and free oxygen 
> (photosynthesis) is 11%. For real plants the specific biochemical steps 
> used varies according to species and so the efficiency ranges from 3 to 6%, 
> nowhere near the maximum. But this shouldn't be surprising, Evolution never 
> finds the perfect solution to a problem because it doesn't need to, it just 
> needs to find a solution that's better than the competition. 
>
> By the way, typical solar cells are about 20% efficient, and some very 
> exotic (and very expensive) ones can reach 40%.  Which just goes to show 
> that human intelligent design beats the hell out of random mutation and 
> natural selection even though it had 4 billion years to work on the problem 
> and we've only been working on it for a decade or two.
>

p.s. This much I vaguely had the measure of. But the efficiency of the 
whole cell is not the context. It's the individual event.  

>
>   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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Methusalem problem for MWI?

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 6:25:37 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM, > wrote:
>  
>
>> > photosynthesis in this universe always finds the most efficient 
>> path where there are many others. 
>>
>
> That is incorrect. Using natural sunlight the maximum theoretical 
> efficiency in turning water and CO2 into glucose and free oxygen 
> (photosynthesis) is 11%. For real plants the specific biochemical steps 
> used varies according to species and so the efficiency ranges from 3 to 6%, 
> nowhere near the maximum. But this shouldn't be surprising, Evolution never 
> finds the perfect solution to a problem because it doesn't need to, it just 
> needs to find a solution that's better than the competition. 
>
> By the way, typical solar cells are about 20% efficient, and some very 
> exotic (and very expensive) ones can reach 40%.  Which just goes to show 
> that human intelligent design beats the hell out of random mutation and 
> natural selection even though it had 4 billion years to work on the problem 
> and we've only been working on it for a decade or two.
>

Well...I was definitely bluffing in some significant way. And you 
definitely called it, so the first hand is yours :o) 

The sense I was bluffing is that I don't have the knowledge at the level to 
actually understand the assertion I'm making. But...what I do have is a 
really intelligent quantum theorist...a young guy I saw first on the telly 
in some sort of intelligence competition. He won. He was also the most 
modest and definitely did his  dutiful best to explain his enormous 
intellect away as "in physics we have to solve puzzles like this routinely 
so I know all the tricks". 

Then I saw him again in this other show about photosynthesis, or that 
included reference to that. And he is the one that clearly states exactly 
what I stated to Liz. 

Bluff called. I shall have to pay up for you both now. I'll work out what 
his name is or what the show was, and get the youtube if possible and/or 
email him and get him to stick his head round the door to account for 
himself. He'll probably be up for it. 

I'll be back

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 6:42:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, > wrote:
>
> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.
>>
>
> I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't 
> matter if the humans on the Supreme Court consider computers to be people 
> or not, the important thing is if computers consider humans to be people or 
> not.
>

Actually I thought of you when I saw that first line. He looks the part 
too. So there could be some association that gets triggered that could make 
your equation say listening to this guy was too unpromising to risk. 

But actually by half way through I think this guy will come through for 
you. He isn't that way too badly. And he's got things to say. I think 
you'll find some it worthwhile. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Edge: Myth of A.I.

[zibbsey]

I know this comes up a lot, so there's a risk this guy isn't saying 
anything new here, but I browsed and decided to view the video and thought 
I'd throw it out in case anyone else wants to enter that process. 

Here's the first few paragraphs, linke at bottom. Edge basically. 

*THE MYTH OF AI*

A lot of us were appalled a few years ago when the American Supreme Court 
decided, out of the blue, to decide a question it hadn't been asked to 
decide, and declare that corporations are people. That's a cover for making 
it easier for big money to have an influence in politics. But there's 
another angle to it, which I don't think has been considered as much: the 
tech companies, which are becoming the most profitable, the fastest rising, 
the richest companies, with the most cash on hand, are essentially people 
for a different reason than that. They might be people because the Supreme 
Court said so, but they're essentially algorithms.

If you look at a company like Google or Amazon and many others, they do a 
little bit of device manufacture, but the only reason they do is to create 
a channel between people and algorithms. And the algorithms run on these 
big cloud computer facilities.

The distinction between a corporation and an algorithm is fading. Does that 
make an algorithm a person? Here we have this interesting confluence 
between two totally different worlds. We have the world of money and 
politics and the so-called conservative Supreme Court, with this other 
world of what we can call artificial intelligence, which is a movement 
within the technical culture to find an equivalence between computers and 
people. In both cases, there's an intellectual tradition that goes back 
many decades. Previously they'd been separated; they'd been worlds apart. 
Now, suddenly they've been intertwined.

The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. It goes 
back to the very origins of computers, and even from before. There's always 
been a question about whether a program is something alive or not since it 
intrinsically has some kind of autonomy at the very least, or it wouldn't 
be a program. There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most 
wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that 
for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence 
between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a 
historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be 
smarter and better than us and will take over from us

http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: I assume everyone's up to speed with this?

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:27:31 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 8:30:37 AM UTC, Samiya wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15-Nov-2014, at 12:31 pm, LizR  wrote:
>>
>> Organised religion in its entirety is a veiled threat.
>>
>>
>> Temporally, yes, because it is abused by humans against humans. However, 
>> temporal worries and troubles should not deter us from seeking the eternal. 
>> We come alone and we leave alone, and where we came from and where we are 
>> headed are giant question marks. Is our temporal existence without any 
>> purpose? Something within me says that there is a purpose and there is much 
>> more before and after our temporal existence, and we are here to figure 
>> that out, so that we can head in the right direction when it's time to head 
>> onwards in the eternal journey, or that is my fairytale
>>
>  
> That's a nice fairy tale, that is to your credit. 
>
> But the big fairytale with you, is that you are an honest emissary of 
> Islam to other peoples and cultures. Being honest means facing up to hard 
> questions, and spending a lot of time seeing things through the eyes of the 
> people you want to be an emissary to. Not to beat them in argument. But to 
> understand, and to experience where appropriate sobering realities about 
> your religion as it happens on the ground in reality, and your people as 
> they happen on the ground in other peoples societies and cultures. 
>
> You don't do anything of this. I've tracked. You don't. 
>
> So there it is. The real fairytale 
>

sorry that was harsher than I had in  mind at outset. This reflects a more 
general problem on my side...not personal

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: I assume everyone's up to speed with this?

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 8:30:37 AM UTC, Samiya wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15-Nov-2014, at 12:31 pm, LizR > wrote:
>
> Organised religion in its entirety is a veiled threat.
>
>
> Temporally, yes, because it is abused by humans against humans. However, 
> temporal worries and troubles should not deter us from seeking the eternal. 
> We come alone and we leave alone, and where we came from and where we are 
> headed are giant question marks. Is our temporal existence without any 
> purpose? Something within me says that there is a purpose and there is much 
> more before and after our temporal existence, and we are here to figure 
> that out, so that we can head in the right direction when it's time to head 
> onwards in the eternal journey, or that is my fairytale
>
 
That's a nice fairy tale, that is to your credit. 

But the big fairytale with you, is that you are an honest emissary of Islam 
to other peoples and cultures. Being honest means facing up to hard 
questions, and spending a lot of time seeing things through the eyes of the 
people you want to be an emissary to. Not to beat them in argument. But to 
understand, and to experience where appropriate sobering realities about 
your religion as it happens on the ground in reality, and your people as 
they happen on the ground in other peoples societies and cultures. 

You don't do anything of this. I've tracked. You don't. 

So there it is. The real fairytale 

>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:02:12 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Ruquist  > wrote:
>
> > Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation 
>> in MWI is said to be irreversible 
>> even though the equation of QM are time reversible. 
>>
>
> The Many Worlds split is not necessarily irreversible, but like 
> thermodynamics it usually is. When the electron approaches the 2 slits the 
> universe splits, but  when it hits the photographic plate (or just a brick 
> wall) the split is reversed; of course that is not a typical situation, it 
> was specifically set up by experimenters to be as simple as possible, in 
> most situations they never recombine because so many things would have to 
> conspire together it would be astronomically unlikely.   
>
> > That might account for the arrow of time.
>>
>
> You don't need Many Worlds or even Quantum Mechanics to explain the arrow 
> of time, all you need is for things to start out in a low entropy state and 
> the fact that there are VASTLY more ways to be disorganized than organized. 
>
> > Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to 
>> that extent.
>>
>
> You keep talking as if the quantum wave function is a real physical thing 
> rather than just a calculating device like the lines of longitude and 
> latitude,  but Quantum Mechanics can get along just fine without 
> Schrodinger's Wave Equation.  In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger 
> came out with his wave equation Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum 
> Mechanics that had nothing to do with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised 
> the Schrodinger Wave Equation because he felt that "a good theory must be 
> based on directly observable magnitudes". And nobody can observe a quantum 
> wave function.
>
> If you measure what a particle is doing at point X Heisenberg could use 
> matrix algebra to tell you what measurements you are likely to get at point 
> Y, and he could do it all without using a unobservable wave, he only used 
> measured quantities .  Heisenberg's original formulation of Quantum 
> Mechanics works just as well as Schrodinger and his Wave Equation, they are 
> equivalent, and which one you use is strictly a matter of taste.  
> an
> The only advantage Schrodinger had is that it allowed human beings to form 
> a mental picture of what is going on, but Heisenberg felt that the mental 
> picture was wrong and the quantum world was so strange that none was any 
> better, so it would be best to just forget about visualization and only 
> worry about what you can measure. 
>


I don't know if he was wrong or right in the specific instance, but he was 
Right in the methodological sense which trumps the specific instance 
anyway. Meaning that, it is better to strip away the intuitive supports, 
replace them. Because if they are actually fundamental, this will come 
through eventually anyway. But going the other intuitive way. Great if it 
is true. But if isn't, chances are, no one ever realizes it isn't. 
 

> Everett disagreed and thought that mental pictures were important but 
> agreed that Schrodinger's was wrong, however he believed that he had found 
> a better one and so do I.
>

Yeah you are weird. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Methusalem problem for MWI?

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 3:55:43 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 November 2014 11:50, > wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure, but in the same vein as where Peter goes, photosynthesis in this 
>> universe always finds the most efficient path where there are many others. 
>> I have'n't heard an answer to that yet, that addresses significance proper. 
>>   We're getting preference every time. Have a go at that:O)
>>
>> I would need more information about how photosynthesis finds the most 
> efficient path before I can answer that. Quantum immortality involves 
> things which are incredibly unlikely, like a spontaneous quantum jup of all 
> the atoms in your body, or similarly possible but 
> more-than-astronomically-unlikely scenarios. I doubt if photosynthesis has 
> a 1 in a googolplex chance of working!
>

 I thought there might be a criteria for perhaps a personal falsification 
of MWI for anyone wanting to be in that space. Isn't the fact 
photosynthesis occurs on a vast scale in terms of these events, and it 
would seem always involves the most efficient path. 

Doesn't that require a large number of universes never to get that path 
Some perhaps get the 2nd most efficient and so on? 

That sounds like grounds for serious question mark over MWI. Or do I have 
this wrong? 

In regard what you said you'd need to know more about. Wellif it's an 
opportunity to resolve a huge matter in your worldview it might be worth 
your while. 

Just for entertainment, the Popperians on FoR ran multiyear rackets 
involving apparently giving reasonable responses to basically knock down 
science wiped large sections of their worldview off the table. They say 
what they'd need to know more about. And make a long list. 

And of course no one was going to bother doing that work for them. So the 
same things would come around and get the same responses. For years. It 
would be hard to see a good theory that didn't involve dishonest and 
insincere behaviour around that. 

It was an entertaining racket on many occasions, for me, I have to admit. 

NOT suggesting a parallel here. But you can see the issues. Would it settle 
something important for you? If so, is there a case to find out what you 
need to know. I don't know the answer. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 7:27:50 AM UTC, Peter Sas wrote:
>
> Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a 
> closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's head 
> to understand the mathematics :)
>
> I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote:
>
> Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking is the action of an 
>
>> observer. Symmetry is restored by considering all other observers out 
>> there in the "Nothing"-verse (more commonly called the Plenitude). 
>>
>
> This what I don't get: How can there already exist observers (or at least 
> one observer) prior to the symmetry breaking, given that it is this 
> breaking that turns zero-info into info? In other words: if you already 
> presuppose an observer, your Nothing is not absolutely nothing... it is an 
> observed nothing, but in my view we can't even presuppose an observer if we 
> want to answer Leibniz' question by starting from nothing...  I admit there 
> is some paradox involved in imagining a 'situation' in which nothing 
> exists, not even an observer... we have to imagine a situation where we 
> ourselves do not exist... to some extent that's impossible of course... 
> after all, I have to exist in order to imagine my own non-existencee... so 
> some observer is always pressupposed (Kan would call this the 
> transcendental subject)... but in my view we can't let that presupposed 
> observer interact with the original nothing to cause symmetry 
> breakingHow do you think about this?
>
> On a more positive note, I like the idea that nothingness is perfectly 
> symmetrical If we define symmetry as remaining the same under 
> transformations, shouldn't we then say that nothing is the most symmetrical 
> entity, since nothing can change it? And if that is the case, then the fact 
> that nature becomes ever more symmetrical the more we delve into 
> fundamentals (ever more elementary particles and laws) suggests that we 
> ultimately arive at nothing since that's the most symmetric this is 
> speculative, of course, but there seems to be some logic to it...
>
> Peter
>

I agree there is a connection and use that in my theory efforts too

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 2:53:28 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2014 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> > LizR wrote: 
> >> On 7 November 2014 12:32, Bruce Kellett   
> >> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> I have not seen your arguments for this, being new to the list, but 
> >> the expansion of the universe is a universal consequence of general 
> >> relativity. So it is built into the laws of physics, and has 
> nothing 
> >> to do with whether or not there ever was a period of rapid 
> inflation. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Expansion or collapse is a consequence of GR, certainly. However I was 
> thinking on a 
> >> larger scale with the EI comment, since EI seems to necessitate the 
> existence of 
> >> expanding universes. Not sure that it can be counted as a TOE though, 
> so it's still in 
> >> need of ultimate explanation.. 
> >> 
> >> The AoT comes from the third law of thermodynamics and has little 
> to 
> >> do with the expansion of the universe. Entropy increases in the 
> same 
> >> direction as the expansion solely because the universe 'began' in a 
> >> state of very low entropy. (The Past Hypothesis). 
> >> 
> >> I didn't realise there was a 3rd law, but anyway - saying the U began 
> in a low entropy 
> >> state begs the question - why did it? The big bang fireball was more or 
> less in 
> >> thermodynamic equilibrium as far as I know, and if it had stopped 
> expanding it would 
> >> have rapidly reached that stage. My point is to explain the 
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry -- typo. I meant the second law, of course. 
> > 
> > I agree that the past hypothesis, while it explains the thermodynamic 
> AoT, itself stands 
> > in need of explanation. This is the great unsolved problem of cosmology 
> -- at least 
> > according to many cosmologists. The initial big bang might be assumed to 
> be in 
> > thermodynaic equilibrium, but that is essentially the same assumption as 
> the assumption 
> > of low entropy. The question remains as to why it was in equilibrium. 
> Generic creation 
> > events might actuallybe expected to produce extremely lumpy universe 
> down to the 
> > smallest scaels. I.e., state with very high entropy. 
>
> What would be the highest possible (and therefore most probable) initial 
> state?  A single 
> black hole?  From an information theoretic viewpoint a universe inflating 
> up from a Planck 
> scale patch would seem most likely - doesn't require any information 
> input. 
>

It depends very much on the theory of reference. From mine, the first 
ever initial state is everything because it doesn't go anywhere

Something I question about the incumbent worldview is that it doesn't of 
itself obstruct ordiscourage really large assumptions slipping for no more 
conscious reason than it relates to something else about the universe being 
described same. So the assumptionca about that other thing just becomes 
entwined. like Scale and relative scale. Looking in a microscope. If that's 
the assumed part, then it's also the assumption scale is what it 
intuitively feels like it has to bewhich has to mean and require that 
the universe history has to have an intuitive spatial conception start to 
finish, for scale to be exactly what it obviously is. 

But what if it isn't? What if it's distortion. What if that's what it is, 
and what if that's the single only key there will ever be to a breakthrough 
theory. If all that, chances are the human possibility for that theory 
blinked out of existence with ...an assumption that was barely made or 
conscious


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote: 
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014  Richard Ruquist > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > > OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than 
> the 
> > > speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI 
> > > requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That 
> doubles 
> > > the energy requirement. Considering the total number of particles 
> created 
> > > in the huge number of interactions resulting in what MWI calls new 
> > > universes, where does all this extra energy come from. Personally I 
> prefer 
> > > to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI. 
> > > 
> > 
> > The conservation of energy is not a law of logic, according to Noether's 
> > theorem it's just the result of the laws of physics remaining the same 
> > during different times, and in any universe where physical law is the 
> same 
> > in different parts of it there must be a law of conservation of 
> momentum. 
> > The laws of physics remain the same in different regions of spacetime in 
> > our universe so we have both those conservations laws, but there is no 
> > reason to think they would remain the same throughout the entire 
> > multiverse, and thus no reason to think those conservation laws are 
> > fundamental. 
>
> The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of 
> the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the 
> Hamiltonian is Hermitian. 
>

So conservation of energy is a concept that undergoes complex translations 
to something completely different. And 'locality' is the concept that has 
to have a  1:1 mapping from QM one world to the other. And of course that 
selection of that 1:1 mapping is the only reason we need to have a 
multiverse with the properties it has. That mapping decision.

So what is the reasoning why locality has to be mapped as that, and 
conservation of energy is good to map to alien structure. 

There isn't a reasoning Russell is there? It's just an arbitrary 
preference, or more feasibly it's just what happens to be 'intuitive'. 

Another arbitrary link is conservation of energy to the wave particle that 
way. You only say that because, again, INTUITIVELY there is sorta kinda a 
parallel. You'll have nothing more..no derivation. No proof that this the 
is the mapping as proof it can't be the set of all the others. 

Tell me this. In science it is normal to expect that it is possible to 
derive the general form of a set of equations that represent some partial 
form, just so long as those equations are known, the sense in which 
partiality, and the translation logic to the multiverse. 

How come none of you can do this work? Or have even tried?

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: QM non local? (was Re: "The Span of Infinity")

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:16:58 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist  
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information 
>>> instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time 
>>> delay cannot be detected.
>>>
>>
>> That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel faster than light 
>> but information is not one of them, a Bose Einstein Condensate can't do it 
>> nor can anything else. What has been proven experimentally is that Bell's 
>> Inequality is violated, so there can no longer be any doubt that if things 
>> are realistic then things CAN influence each other over vast distances much 
>> faster than light, probably instantly. 
>>
>>
>> Only in mono-universe form of realism. Bell's inequality measure a local 
>> (in one branch) non locality, but the wave (which is physical in the MW) 
>> evolves locally, without any influence at a distance. there are only 
>> interference between states who have evolved locally. 
>>
>>
>>
>> Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the "MW" picture of the 
>> singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.
>>
>> Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even in 
>> the many-world, there is a remnant of no-local influence in the "physical 
>> reality".
>>
>> Let us take the culprit: the singlet state 11 - 00. written in the base 
>> {0, 1}. it looks like the superposition of two worlds, one with Alice and 
>> Bob having particles in the state 1, and one with Alice and Bob having 
>> their respective particle in the state 0.
>>
>> We know, from outside, that in this world, would Alice measure its 
>> particle state, she would find the correct corresponding value.
>>
>> But wait, the singlet state is quantum equivalent with 1'1' -0'0', up to 
>> a phase (e^i theta). with 0 and 0' making any angle phi, so long as 1 and 
>> 1' make the same angle: it is just a change of orthonormal bases.
>>
>> So how could we avoid the dilemma between interpreting in the different 
>> orthonormal bases? 
>>
>> The "FPI" answer here is that Alice and Bob are ignorant on the e^i 
>> theta, so there is no way for them to define an absolute fixed orthonormal 
>> basis, which are defined by their original choice of the bases used in the 
>> preparation of the entangled state. 
>>
>> Their is an equivalent superposition for each angle, and in fact any 
>> unitary transformation of the states. This is a vast continuum (assuming NR 
>> QM to make simple) of such "splitting" or "accessible differentiation 
>> possible. In each of them, the correlation are local, and propagate 
>> locally. 
>>
>> What is wrong is in having given a sense to "We know from outside that in 
>> this world, would Alice measure its particle state, she would find the 
>> correct corresponding value". In fact, we can't know that, because we can 
>> see Alice and Bob doing that in all orthonormal bases for each angle, and 
>> it is purely conventional to fix the angle, like Alice, in such a way that 
>> in her perspective, the particle state is well defined as 0 or 1. She 
>> prepared it that way, but of course, that is what believe all Alice, for 
>> any 0' and 1' bases, doing any angle phi with 0 and 1.
>>
>
> OK, on the same terms, what's wrong with this explanation: 
>
> Let's say it's reasonable there are 8 levels of detail below me at my 
> scale. Two little critters at that level are in the same stack as me but 
> they can't exchange information in local realism the same as me...because 
> for them that's thousands of miles apart. Yet my locality feasibly can drop 
> the same datum into one or both their positions. 
>
> So it follows then, 8 levels up could be the galactic localityI may 
> not be able tosignal you across that, but the same datum could be dropped 
> into both our positions from 8 levels up in a locally real way
>

i.e. so it's at least feasible I can communicate non-locally with you 
by shunting my datum up 8 levels and somehow knowing it'll shunt down 8 
levels the other side to you.

 but it only works if there is energy upward. But that's the interesting 
thing about entanglement. The combined states of the system as a whole are 
fewer than the sum of the two unentangled particles. So that means, 
feasibly, entanglement reduces entropy at some level of that. And less 
entropy means Energy for Work just became available. Which could be 
deployed to shunt my datum upward.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: QM non local? (was Re: "The Span of Infinity")

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist  > wrote:
>
> > It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information 
>> instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time 
>> delay cannot be detected.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel faster than light 
> but information is not one of them, a Bose Einstein Condensate can't do it 
> nor can anything else. What has been proven experimentally is that Bell's 
> Inequality is violated, so there can no longer be any doubt that if things 
> are realistic then things CAN influence each other over vast distances much 
> faster than light, probably instantly. 
>
>
> Only in mono-universe form of realism. Bell's inequality measure a local 
> (in one branch) non locality, but the wave (which is physical in the MW) 
> evolves locally, without any influence at a distance. there are only 
> interference between states who have evolved locally. 
>
>
>
> Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the "MW" picture of the 
> singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.
>
> Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even in the 
> many-world, there is a remnant of no-local influence in the "physical 
> reality".
>
> Let us take the culprit: the singlet state 11 - 00. written in the base 
> {0, 1}. it looks like the superposition of two worlds, one with Alice and 
> Bob having particles in the state 1, and one with Alice and Bob having 
> their respective particle in the state 0.
>
> We know, from outside, that in this world, would Alice measure its 
> particle state, she would find the correct corresponding value.
>
> But wait, the singlet state is quantum equivalent with 1'1' -0'0', up to a 
> phase (e^i theta). with 0 and 0' making any angle phi, so long as 1 and 1' 
> make the same angle: it is just a change of orthonormal bases.
>
> So how could we avoid the dilemma between interpreting in the different 
> orthonormal bases? 
>
> The "FPI" answer here is that Alice and Bob are ignorant on the e^i theta, 
> so there is no way for them to define an absolute fixed orthonormal basis, 
> which are defined by their original choice of the bases used in the 
> preparation of the entangled state. 
>
> Their is an equivalent superposition for each angle, and in fact any 
> unitary transformation of the states. This is a vast continuum (assuming NR 
> QM to make simple) of such "splitting" or "accessible differentiation 
> possible. In each of them, the correlation are local, and propagate 
> locally. 
>
> What is wrong is in having given a sense to "We know from outside that in 
> this world, would Alice measure its particle state, she would find the 
> correct corresponding value". In fact, we can't know that, because we can 
> see Alice and Bob doing that in all orthonormal bases for each angle, and 
> it is purely conventional to fix the angle, like Alice, in such a way that 
> in her perspective, the particle state is well defined as 0 or 1. She 
> prepared it that way, but of course, that is what believe all Alice, for 
> any 0' and 1' bases, doing any angle phi with 0 and 1.
>

OK, on the same terms, what's wrong with this explanation: 

Let's say it's reasonable there are 8 levels of detail below me at my 
scale. Two little critters at that level are in the same stack as me but 
they can't exchange information in local realism the same as me...because 
for them that's thousands of miles apart. Yet my locality feasibly can drop 
the same datum into one or both their positions. 

So it follows then, 8 levels up could be the galactic localityI may not 
be able tosignal you across that, but the same datum could be dropped into 
both our positions from 8 levels up in a locally real way

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 8:44:46 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist  > wrote:
>
> > In other words you do not know
>>
>
> That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in other 
> universes,  but there is believe they have always been identical to the 
> laws in our home universe. 
>
>John K Clark
>

There's no reason to or not to assume that. You've already constructed a 
model that assumes infinity. Including infinite resources for infinity 
projects at infinite specific localities. Infinite this infinite 
that. Infinity means just that. You can infinitely do whatever the f*ck you 
want in your theory. If you want to make it so the forces of nature we see 
here are invariant across the multiverse. Fine! Just define the multiverse 
some other way that makes that work. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:10:09 PM UTC, Peter Sas wrote:
>
> Does anybody know this paper: 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
>
> And is it any good?
>

IMHO it's two time bollocks 

even if this was a legitimate solution for universe from nothing or 
whatever. That isn't a capture of the problemyes how that, but then how 
all the structure and form?  There's no point decoupling the problem to 
some little initialization. Because all you get is some little thing that's 
only worth anything if it can then explain the rest. Might as well just 
keep it together

The other way it's bollocks is that we aren't defining in strong way. Can 
existence spring from non-existence? Only if it wasn't non-existence, to 
the extent there was a potential for existence to jump out.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 9:30:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR > wrote:
>  
>
>> > There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to 
>>> black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far 
>>> from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a 
>>> fundamental feature of physics, while the other sort only emerges due to 
>>> coarse graining. I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed any light on 
>>> this apparent discrepancy.
>>>
>>
> I'm not sure what you mean that there are 2 types of Entropy, it always 
> works the same way. The Entropy of a Black Hole (and the Entropy of 
> anything else) is Boltzmann's  constant time the logarithm of the number of 
> ways the Black Hole could have gotten into the state it's in now. The 
> reason we use a logarithm in the definition is we want to be able to say 
> that the total Entropy of the combined system X and Y is the Entropy of X 
> PLUS the Entropy of Y,  if we didn't use logarithms it would be X times Y.  
> For example, if system X could have gotten to the way it is now in 3 
> different ways and system Y could have gotten to the way it is now in 5 
> different ways then the combined system could have gotten to the way it is 
> now in 3*5 =15 different ways, but ln 3 + ln 5 = ln 15.
>
> Any constant could be used but it is convenient to use Boltzmann's 
> constant because it's nice if Entropy is in units of energy/temperature.
>

this where you strong strong strong. But the other day you say big 
bang was consequence of entropy by 1851 as a direct consequence. You 
obviously have never been in a situation of new discovery to be saying 
that. People need masses of convergence and independence and linking and 
all kinds of shit to progress a long chain of consequences. Anyway, why 
would it have been rigourous in 1851 to say entropy was a universal when it 
might have been tied to the steam turbine? or when the sun seemed to burn 
forever and the cosmos seemed static and eternal. 

 I still quite fancy yer mind

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:57:51 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to 
> black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far 
> from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a 
> fundamental feature of physics, while the other sort only emerges due to 
> coarse graining. I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed any light on 
> this apparent discrepancy.
>
>
Hi Liz - it's the same entropy, or same concept. Just two different 
levels. The equation for entropy has an E for Energy and vice verca. As in 
Entropy go down, Energy for Work go up. Energy probably fundamental as much 
as the best of them 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 7:17:48 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *zib...@gmail.com 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 2:36 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 6:19:09 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *zib...@gmail.com
> *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 2:56 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!
>
>  
>
> it's because we are near the furthest the universe can get before things 
> drop away or out of synch and there's that. 
>
>  
>
> couple of weeks back a related opposite paper came out that the universe 
> should have 400% more light, but it's vanishing they can't find where. Then 
> they say, what's weird is when they look back in time the light builds back 
> and everything pans out. But not here. Maybe someone should put these 
> people together because one might have found what the other is looking for. 
>
>  
>
> Interesting… and also weird, would like to read it, you don’t have a link 
> to that by any chance?
>
>  
>
> On the other hand maybe this team is shit, because the other report said 
> counter intuitively less light had the effect making the universe look 
> brighter by reducing glare. Maybe this time is seeing the brightness and 
> assuming it's brightness.
>
>  
>
> I don’t see how that follows. Essentially telescopes are photon buckets… 
> if there are fewer photons out there, then the light sources that do exist 
> will pop out more – e.g. have better contrast against the relatively dark 
> background. But that still is less light. I believe the one experiment was 
> measuring the amount of light (e.g. incident photons) – that measurement 
> would not care about – nor be affected by -- the degree of contrast between 
> some light source (a galaxy, a star etc.) and the cosmic background.
>
>  
>
> Hi Chris, I was reading this again. Would it ok that you run this by me 
> again...obviously not cut and pasting the above :o0 
>
>  
>
> Well it seems the missing light observation is centered on ultraviolet 
> light wavelengths in the inter galactic dust ribbons that characterize the 
> sponge like macro structure of the universe. Quite an interesting 
> discrepancy and what is causing it…. Certainly an interesting potential for 
> speculation – as they are in fact speculating.
>
> I believe that this would not have had any effect on the measurements 
> being done by the other team that found an excess of diffuse light – not 
> originating from any known galaxy, but rather from the background in 
> between. They hypothesize that this diffuse light is caused by wandering 
> stars, ejected from their parent galaxies that are too far to image, but 
> that in their aggregate are the source of this light.
>
> This is my read on it at least.
>
> -Chris
>

Thanks for this. I can certainly see that I hadn't thought carefully enough 
there. 

Yeah weird. I know what I think it is but it's too different worldview for 
the same language. Not being mystical. that said harry potter is a personal 
friend and I've been on platform 8 1/2 

>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On the current reading I think you are saying what the tea that found 
> missing light are saying. and likely defining measuring the way they 
> measured, because although they identified that lower light resulted in 
> brigher picture, they didn't fall for it or have trouble getting the 
> measurement not distorted by it. 
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -Chris
>
>  
>
> by 
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:20:19 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> This is in the news today…. Not what I thought to be the case, nor what I 
> expected to hear. If true cosmologists will need to rework their models of 
> galaxy formation.
>
>  
>
> http://phys.org/news/2014-11-caltech-rocket-cosmic.html
>
> Using an experiment carried into space on a NASA suborbital rocket, 
> astronomers at Caltech and their colleagues have detected a diffuse cosmic 
> glow that appears to represent more light than that produced by known 
> galaxies in the universe.
>
> The researchers, including Caltech Professor of Physics Jamie Bock and 
> Caltech Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Michael Zemcov, say that the best 
> explanation is that the cosmic light—described in a paper published 
> November 7 in the journal *Science*—originates from stars 
>  that were stripped away from their parent 
> galaxies  and flung out into space as 
> those galaxies collided and merged with other galaxies.
>
> The discovery suggests that many such previously undetected stars permeate 
> what had been thought to be dark spaces between galaxies, forming an 
> interconnected sea of 

Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 3:26:38 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Interesting, thanks for bringing this to my awareness; another mystery and 
> evidence of the on-going incompleteness of our current understanding. 
>
> This is my favorite line from the article: "You know it's a crisis when 
> you start seriously talking about decaying dark matter!" Katz remarked.
>

Got a good laugh from that cheers 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:26:41 PM UTC, JohnM wrote:
>
> Bruno wwrote: 
> 'science is agnostic,, that's why we need to put back theology in science, 
> so that we can develop agnostic theories or narratives, precise enough to 
> show them wrong, and progress...
> Did I misunderstand it? we developp FAITH (theology) in agnostically 
> developed theories and progress by showing them wrong?  so we may 'believe' 
> what is proven wrong - only? 
>
> Then again 
>
> John Mikes :
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
>> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
>> Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, 
>> so you can decry a 'possibility' of such?
>> Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?
>> JM
>>
>  
>   Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> JM:
>> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the 
>> star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific 
>> speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point 
>> of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species and its 
>> descendents, why not go for the highest hanging fruit?
>>
>> So we should join the crowd of "physical Universe" figment believers who 
> just churn round and round the wise explanations of misunderstood phenomena 
> since the old Greeks (maybe longer ago)? What you say is all to believe the 
> figments (their "nth consequences" upon the mth explanations)  what "Saint 
> Science" teaches? 
> True: human technology is miraculous, but so is the swimming skills of 
> fish and hunting habits of the tiger. Or and ant hill in action.
> By establishing what we don't believe (agnostically) we never get further 
> ahead. 
>
>
 

> BTW I am studying the differences between the meaning how diverse 
> languages use 'anticipate', 'presume', 'expect', 'assume', and some more in 
> (a creative?) progressing - into new domains. How do we learn "new"? 
>
>  
It's a good of words between one another. 

Funnily enough I've been down this road or one like it. Same concept sets, 
boundaries in play, big questions about newness. 
By the looks of what you just saidbuckle up, you've got  a long journey 
to go. It's a years one that. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:30:03 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Nov 2014, at 10:00 am, zib...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:43:44 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 7 Nov 2014, at 8:07 am, John Mikes  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > My apologies for the missing "b" in your e-mail address, Mr/Mrs/Ms 
>> Gibbsey! 
>> > JM 
>>
>> It's Al Hibbs. No one else writes such a torrent of vomitous prose. I 
>> hope he has taken his pill. 
>>
>> Kim
>
>
> Kim, you're a dim witted failed teacher  probably linked to the ideology 
> you spent your life promoting elwhich was all about you not facing 
> performance testing linked to delivering a competent class to the chidren. 
> Which you presented as protecting the children from testing. 
>
> You way below my paygrade you flabby mediocre sychophant
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for confirming
>
> your past ccolleagues employers and pupils would be doing that 

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:43:44 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 7 Nov 2014, at 8:07 am, John Mikes > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > My apologies for the missing "b" in your e-mail address, Mr/Mrs/Ms 
> Gibbsey! 
> > JM 
>
> It's Al Hibbs. No one else writes such a torrent of vomitous prose. I hope 
> he has taken his pill. 
>
> Kim


Kim, you're a dim witted failed teacher  probably linked to the ideology 
you spent your life promoting elwhich was all about you not facing 
performance testing linked to delivering a competent class to the chidren. 
Which you presented as protecting the children from testing. 

You way below my paygrade you flabby mediocre sychophant





-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Methusalem problem for MWI?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:18:20 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 7 November 2014 23:17, Peter Sas > 
> wrote:
>
>> O.K. so here is a question to which there is perhaps an easy answer... 
>> I've been searching the net for an answer, but I can't find one... So 
>> please enlighten me!
>>
>> On this forum MWI is probably the most popular interpretation of QM. As 
>> Moravec, Bruno Marchal and Tegmark have argued, WMI implies quantum 
>> immortality. Every event that could cause my death has in the universal 
>> wave function multiple outcomes, which are all realized in different 
>> parallel worlds. In some of these worlds I die; in other worlds I survive. 
>> Subjectively I should feel myself immortal. So far so good... But now my 
>> question is: why aren't there any immortals (or at least absurdly old 
>> people) in our world?
>>
>
> Because the size of the multiverse is mind-bogglingly huge, and the 
> chances of someone surviving to be 100,200,300 etc are very very close to 
> zero. I don't know what the actual chances are, in the sense of the number 
> of branches you would need in order for one of them to contain a person who 
> lived to be, say, 200, but I suspect that it's a lot higher than 100 
> billion (roughly the number of people who have ever lived). It's probably 
> something ridiculously huge like an Avogadro of branches. Say it's 10 to 
> the 26 for the ssake of argument. Then the chances are, even given all the 
> people who've lived, that we'd still never find a Methuselah in our 
> particular branch - the chances are still around 1 in 10 to the 15 of 
> finding a Methuselah. Throw in all the animals too, and aliens, and there 
> might be one ... perhaps ... given that I probably grossly underestimated 
> the real number of branches required  but even if we found it, it would 
> almost certainly die in the next few seconds, because the chances of 
> survival continue to drop (but never quite reach zero). So we might find a 
> 1000 year old man who would die immediately (if we were incredibly lucky).
>
> To put it another way, David Deutsch reckons that there are "Harry Potter 
> universes" in which magic appear to work through the fact that random 
> events conspire to make it appear so. This means basically the 2nd law of 
> thermodynamics has failed in such universes, repeatedly, and the chances of 
> THAT are ludicrously small, say one in 10 to the 5 for repeated 
> failures long enough to make people believe magic works reliably. The 
> chances the NEXT spell will work is perhaps one in 10 to the 1. So HPUs 
> cease to exist at a ridiculously high rate, but there are always some, 
> somewhere, in an infinite multiverse... but the chances of us being in one, 
> or seeing any such effect, ever, is incredibly small.
>
> We have hardly any chance of seeing *one* such event (thermodynamic 
> reversal) in our entire universe during its entire lifetime. So if you 
> consider that quantum immortality involves a breakdown of the 2nd law to 
> some extent you can see the chances are against any quantum immortal 
> existing in our particular universe anywhere on any planet at any time, and 
> if one did, it would only last for a few seconds!
>

Sure, but in the same vein as where Peter goes, photosynthesis in this 
universe always finds the most efficient path where there are many others. 
I have'n't heard an answer to that yet, that addresses significance proper. 
  We're getting preference every time. Have a go at that:O)

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 10:10:45 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> LizR wrote: 
> > On 7 November 2014 20:22, Bruce Kellett   
> > > wrote: 
> > 
> > You seem determined to play the role of 'spoiler' in this 
> > discussion, regardless of the merit of the arguments. ;-) 
> > 
> > 
> > Bruce, meet Brent! 
>
> I have known Brent for many years on the avoid list. Surprisingly, we 
> often agree about things, and it is unusual for Brent's contributions to 
> the discussion to be other than constructive. The 'spoiler' can lead one 
> to be more careful about what one says in haste 
>
> Bruce 
>

hear hear your comment about Brent. Wish he'd talk to me sometimes. I think 
I've offended way back somewhere, and have been left on ignore ever since.  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 6:19:09 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *zib...@gmail.com 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 2:56 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!
>
>  
>
> it's because we are near the furthest the universe can get before things 
> drop away or out of synch and there's that. 
>
>  
>
> couple of weeks back a related opposite paper came out that the universe 
> should have 400% more light, but it's vanishing they can't find where. Then 
> they say, what's weird is when they look back in time the light builds back 
> and everything pans out. But not here. Maybe someone should put these 
> people together because one might have found what the other is looking for. 
>
>  
>
> Interesting… and also weird, would like to read it, you don’t have a link 
> to that by any chance?
>
>  
>
> On the other hand maybe this team is shit, because the other report said 
> counter intuitively less light had the effect making the universe look 
> brighter by reducing glare. Maybe this time is seeing the brightness and 
> assuming it's brightness.
>
>  
>
> I don’t see how that follows. Essentially telescopes are photon buckets… 
> if there are fewer photons out there, then the light sources that do exist 
> will pop out more – e.g. have better contrast against the relatively dark 
> background. But that still is less light. I believe the one experiment was 
> measuring the amount of light (e.g. incident photons) – that measurement 
> would not care about – nor be affected by -- the degree of contrast between 
> some light source (a galaxy, a star etc.) and the cosmic background.
>

Hi Chris, I was reading this again. Would it ok that you run this by me 
again...obviously not cut and pasting the above :o0 

On the current reading I think you are saying what the tea that found 
missing light are saying. and likely defining measuring the way they 
measured, because although they identified that lower light resulted in 
brigher picture, they didn't fall for it or have trouble getting the 
measurement not distorted by it. 
 


-Chris
>
>  
>
> by 
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:20:19 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> This is in the news today…. Not what I thought to be the case, nor what I 
> expected to hear. If true cosmologists will need to rework their models of 
> galaxy formation.
>
>  
>
> http://phys.org/news/2014-11-caltech-rocket-cosmic.html
>
> Using an experiment carried into space on a NASA suborbital rocket, 
> astronomers at Caltech and their colleagues have detected a diffuse cosmic 
> glow that appears to represent more light than that produced by known 
> galaxies in the universe.
>
> The researchers, including Caltech Professor of Physics Jamie Bock and 
> Caltech Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Michael Zemcov, say that the best 
> explanation is that the cosmic light—described in a paper published 
> November 7 in the journal *Science*—originates from stars 
>  that were stripped away from their parent 
> galaxies  and flung out into space as 
> those galaxies collided and merged with other galaxies.
>
> The discovery suggests that many such previously undetected stars permeate 
> what had been thought to be dark spaces between galaxies, forming an 
> interconnected sea of stars. "Measuring such large fluctuations surprised 
> us, but we carried out many tests to show the results are reliable," says 
> Zemcov, who led the study.
>
> Although they cannot be seen individually, "the total light produced by 
> these stray stars is about equal to the background light we get from 
> counting up individual galaxies," says Bock, also a senior research 
> scientist at JPL. Bock is the principal investigator of the rocket project, 
> called the Cosmic Infrared Background Experiment, or CIBER, which 
> originated at Caltech and flew on four rocket flights from 2009 through 
> 2013.
>
> In earlier studies, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, which sees the 
> universe at longer wavelengths, had observed a splotchy pattern of infrared 
> light called the cosmic infrared background. The splotches are much bigger 
> than individual galaxies. "We are measuring structures that are grand on a 
> cosmic scale," says Zemcov, "and these sizes are associated with galaxies 
> bunching together on a large-scale pattern." Initially some researchers 
> proposed that this light came from the very first galaxies to form and 
> ignite stars after the Big Bang. Others, however, have argued the light 
> originated from stars stripped from galaxies in more recent times.
>
> CIBER was designed to help settle the debate. "CIBER was born as a 
> conversation with Asantha Cooray, a theoretical cosmologist at UC Irvine 
> and at the time a postdoc at Caltech with [former professor] Marc 
> Kamionkowski," 

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:31:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Nov 2014, at 23:31, John Mikes wrote:
>
> What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our 
> "optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence of the 
> mth imaginary idea. 
>
>
Art is agnostic. That's about it for that. philosophers are political 
and it hasn't been the scientists putting it about sciene is agnostic but 
non-scientific philosophers. But science has never been agnostic. It is a 
Faith. In a naturalistic world view, and that it is discoverable but only 
with our best of best of best, and not with our creativity 
guessing constructions in reason. That's pre-science and the problem it had 
was everything needed to be defined up front. And what that meant was, 
ultimately the consequences simply confirmed whatever set them off. 

Science emerged as the solution to that. By reversing everything out 
basically. So now the defining part was the concluding part at the end. And 
it was easy to do, it was hard. And a fundamental problem of traversing a 
backward running reasoning emerged. And the solution to that was 
prediction.   


And the prediction of that is that, theories that don't predict go back to 
defining up front and back out of science. And scientific theories predict 
and define at conclusion. 

;And well structured theories like yours have the possibility if there is 
total commitment to truth, of up-levelling to science. But in your case it 
may not happen because currently you ascend yourself to 'science' simply  
by revising science back to philosophy.

It is a pretty obvious logical fact lthat if you have an easy to vary 
factor, in any equation, then whatever you wantequtation to say is a matter 
of adjusting easy to vary part. So your equation for what science is going 
to tell you exactly what you want to hear, if you have the authority to 
slide the standards up and down. It's what Deutsch does.. 

For me that's about people not honouring the pact to when it comes round we 
all put truth above our own theory. Because Truth has only ever been 
advanced by high standards non-trivial predictions Hard Science.

> The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy-born and 
> exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately words: a psychotic 
> mass murderer - ha ha).
> Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations, 
>  hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake, rotting 
> in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love', 'justice', 
>  forgiveness'  and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes first. 
> Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/misunderstood 
> observations - and - mathematics. A huge system. 
>
> Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental prowess to 
> vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation, self defence into 
> imperialistic warring.
> Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps the 
> global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious storms and 
> less rainfall etc.) 
> Something like that...
>
>
> Science is agnostic. That is why we need to put back theology in science, 
> so that we can develop agnostic theories, or narratives, precise enough to 
> show them wrong, and progress.
>
> The problems rarely come from the ideas or theories, but only from he fact 
> that some people dare to impose ideas to others by violence (verbal or with 
> bullets).
>
> I like your agnosticism, and the computationalist theory explains why for 
> all machines, agnosticism optimizes the ability to change your mind and 
> recognize that a theory is wrong in this or that aspect. It is the 
> pre-condition of progressing toward a possible truth we can hope for.
>
> But even if we find it, we can't communicate as such. It will just happen 
> that some ideas will never be refuted, despite their many consequences.
>
> For this to happen, we need to take our theories seriously, and work them 
> out.Taking something seriously does not mean taking them as dogma or truth.
>
> In the fundamental realm, nothing should be taken for granted, but simple 
> assumption are needed, as we cannot explain anything without some 
> assumption, in the public setting.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> JM
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> JM 
>> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the 
>> star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific 
>> speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point 
>> of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species and its 
>> descendents, why not go for the highest hanging fruit?
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Mikes >
>> To: everything-list >
>> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
>> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
>>
>>  Sp

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 8:20:01 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory.
>

Maybe, but the crisis right now is there are all these different camps 
increasingly hostile. Each camp claims there's no crisis in science. They 
then explain that's because what they are doing is proper science, And the 
others are not, or they are bad phiosophers. 

Which is actually a consensus. Because they all have exactly the same view. 
They all science to their approach. 

Yet one more invariant we can also add to the consensus is what none of 
them do is tell us something new we go look. They don't predict. 

And yet another invariant is they all dismiss the importance of that.

But ...if there was one that made non-trivial breakthrough predictions, the 
fact is, this situation would vanish, science would restart, proper 
frameworks that guided research by early primordial predictions would 
exponentially suck in new talent. all the other theories would experience 
brain drain, and sccientifi consenus would re-emerge. 

So there it is. You don't  have choose between them. They all say the same 
thing. There is no way anyway. Just go for the better looking onesmight 
as well be with the lookers. 

There is no separating them. So treat them all like one argument for what 
science is. And choose that. Or choose the other one. That predictions are 
fundamental because anyway a break through theory abut the world, 
presumably has something new to tell us. But it's more than just that. The 
popper rot talks about falsification as if that is what it's about. No. 
Theories never falsified by the time the big prediction shows  up They 
would get there in the first place. Falsification is important that we all 
make a pact that when our day comes we will honour truth over our theory. 

But it's not bout that. It's about the predictions that are confirmed. 
Because what they now are, is the way we find new energy and new other 
things. The equation V = IR translates to super preise predictications that 
are so reliable to be confirmed that we an build circuits millions, and 
never once worry the energy won't show. 

That's the fundamental importance.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 6:19:09 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *zib...@gmail.com 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 2:56 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!
>
>  
>
> it's because we are near the furthest the universe can get before things 
> drop away or out of synch and there's that. 
>
>  
>
> couple of weeks back a related opposite paper came out that the universe 
> should have 400% more light, but it's vanishing they can't find where. Then 
> they say, what's weird is when they look back in time the light builds back 
> and everything pans out. But not here. Maybe someone should put these 
> people together because one might have found what the other is looking for. 
>
>  
>
> Interesting… and also weird, would like to read it, you don’t have a link 
> to that by any chance?
>
>  
>
> On the other hand maybe this team is shit, because the other report said 
> counter intuitively less light had the effect making the universe look 
> brighter by reducing glare. Maybe this time is seeing the brightness and 
> assuming it's brightness.
>
>  
>
> I don’t see how that follows. Essentially telescopes are photon buckets… 
> if there are fewer photons out there, then the light sources that do exist 
> will pop out more – e.g. have better contrast against the relatively dark 
> background. But that still is less light. I believe the one experiment was 
> measuring the amount of light (e.g. incident photons) – that measurement 
> would not care about – nor be affected by -- the degree of contrast between 
> some light source (a galaxy, a star etc.) and the cosmic background
>

You're probably right...it's just that they seemed to be talking 
about something in terms of a tint over everythingf 

but the main reason I speculate is just that one lot are talking about only 
1/4 of light detectible while the other it's more than twice as much as 
should be.  


-Chris
>
>  
>
> by 
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:20:19 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> This is in the news today…. Not what I thought to be the case, nor what I 
> expected to hear. If true cosmologists will need to rework their models of 
> galaxy formation.
>
>  
>
> http://phys.org/news/2014-11-caltech-rocket-cosmic.html
>
> Using an experiment carried into space on a NASA suborbital rocket, 
> astronomers at Caltech and their colleagues have detected a diffuse cosmic 
> glow that appears to represent more light than that produced by known 
> galaxies in the universe.
>
> The researchers, including Caltech Professor of Physics Jamie Bock and 
> Caltech Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Michael Zemcov, say that the best 
> explanation is that the cosmic light—described in a paper published 
> November 7 in the journal *Science*—originates from stars 
>  that were stripped away from their parent 
> galaxies  and flung out into space as 
> those galaxies collided and merged with other galaxies.
>
> The discovery suggests that many such previously undetected stars permeate 
> what had been thought to be dark spaces between galaxies, forming an 
> interconnected sea of stars. "Measuring such large fluctuations surprised 
> us, but we carried out many tests to show the results are reliable," says 
> Zemcov, who led the study.
>
> Although they cannot be seen individually, "the total light produced by 
> these stray stars is about equal to the background light we get from 
> counting up individual galaxies," says Bock, also a senior research 
> scientist at JPL. Bock is the principal investigator of the rocket project, 
> called the Cosmic Infrared Background Experiment, or CIBER, which 
> originated at Caltech and flew on four rocket flights from 2009 through 
> 2013.
>
> In earlier studies, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, which sees the 
> universe at longer wavelengths, had observed a splotchy pattern of infrared 
> light called the cosmic infrared background. The splotches are much bigger 
> than individual galaxies. "We are measuring structures that are grand on a 
> cosmic scale," says Zemcov, "and these sizes are associated with galaxies 
> bunching together on a large-scale pattern." Initially some researchers 
> proposed that this light came from the very first galaxies to form and 
> ignite stars after the Big Bang. Others, however, have argued the light 
> originated from stars stripped from galaxies in more recent times.
>
> CIBER was designed to help settle the debate. "CIBER was born as a 
> conversation with Asantha Cooray, a theoretical cosmologist at UC Irvine 
> and at the time a postdoc at Caltech with [former professor] Marc 
> Kamionkowski," Bock explains. "Asantha developed an idea for studying 
> galaxies by measuring their large-scale structure. Galaxies form in 
> dark-matter halos, which are over-de

Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!

[zibbsey]

this article is about it 
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/cosmic_accounting_reveals_missing_light_crisis

On Friday, November 7, 2014 6:19:09 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:

>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *zib...@gmail.com 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 2:56 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!
>
>  
>
> it's because we are near the furthest the universe can get before things 
> drop away or out of synch and there's that. 
>
>  
>
> couple of weeks back a related opposite paper came out that the universe 
> should have 400% more light, but it's vanishing they can't find where. Then 
> they say, what's weird is when they look back in time the light builds back 
> and everything pans out. But not here. Maybe someone should put these 
> people together because one might have found what the other is looking for. 
>
>  
>
> Interesting… and also weird, would like to read it, you don’t have a link 
> to that by any chance?
>
>  
>
> On the other hand maybe this team is shit, because the other report said 
> counter intuitively less light had the effect making the universe look 
> brighter by reducing glare. Maybe this time is seeing the brightness and 
> assuming it's brightness.
>
>  
>
> I don’t see how that follows. Essentially telescopes are photon buckets… 
> if there are fewer photons out there, then the light sources that do exist 
> will pop out more – e.g. have better contrast against the relatively dark 
> background. But that still is less light. I believe the one experiment was 
> measuring the amount of light (e.g. incident photons) – that measurement 
> would not care about – nor be affected by -- the degree of contrast between 
> some light source (a galaxy, a star etc.) and the cosmic background.
>
> -Chris
>
>  
>
> by 
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:20:19 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> This is in the news today…. Not what I thought to be the case, nor what I 
> expected to hear. If true cosmologists will need to rework their models of 
> galaxy formation.
>
>  
>
> http://phys.org/news/2014-11-caltech-rocket-cosmic.html
>
> Using an experiment carried into space on a NASA suborbital rocket, 
> astronomers at Caltech and their colleagues have detected a diffuse cosmic 
> glow that appears to represent more light than that produced by known 
> galaxies in the universe.
>
> The researchers, including Caltech Professor of Physics Jamie Bock and 
> Caltech Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Michael Zemcov, say that the best 
> explanation is that the cosmic light—described in a paper published 
> November 7 in the journal *Science*—originates from stars 
>  that were stripped away from their parent 
> galaxies  and flung out into space as 
> those galaxies collided and merged with other galaxies.
>
> The discovery suggests that many such previously undetected stars permeate 
> what had been thought to be dark spaces between galaxies, forming an 
> interconnected sea of stars. "Measuring such large fluctuations surprised 
> us, but we carried out many tests to show the results are reliable," says 
> Zemcov, who led the study.
>
> Although they cannot be seen individually, "the total light produced by 
> these stray stars is about equal to the background light we get from 
> counting up individual galaxies," says Bock, also a senior research 
> scientist at JPL. Bock is the principal investigator of the rocket project, 
> called the Cosmic Infrared Background Experiment, or CIBER, which 
> originated at Caltech and flew on four rocket flights from 2009 through 
> 2013.
>
> In earlier studies, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, which sees the 
> universe at longer wavelengths, had observed a splotchy pattern of infrared 
> light called the cosmic infrared background. The splotches are much bigger 
> than individual galaxies. "We are measuring structures that are grand on a 
> cosmic scale," says Zemcov, "and these sizes are associated with galaxies 
> bunching together on a large-scale pattern." Initially some researchers 
> proposed that this light came from the very first galaxies to form and 
> ignite stars after the Big Bang. Others, however, have argued the light 
> originated from stars stripped from galaxies in more recent times.
>
> CIBER was designed to help settle the debate. "CIBER was born as a 
> conversation with Asantha Cooray, a theoretical cosmologist at UC Irvine 
> and at the time a postdoc at Caltech with [former professor] Marc 
> Kamionkowski," Bock explains. "Asantha developed an idea for studying 
> galaxies by measuring their large-scale structure. Galaxies form in 
> dark-matter halos, which are over-dense regions initially seeded in the 
> early universe by inflation. Furthermore, galaxies not only start out in 
> these halos, they tend to cluster together as well. Asantha had 

Re: Half of all stars may exist outside of galaxies!

[zibbsey]

it's because we are near the furthest the universe can get before things 
drop away or out of synch and there's that. 

couple of weeks back a related opposite paper came out that the universe 
should have 400% more light, but it's vanishing they can't find where. Then 
they say, what's weird is when they look back in time the light builds back 
and everything pans out. But not here. Maybe someone should put these 
people together because one might have found what the other is looking for. 

On the other hand maybe this team is shit, because the other report said 
counter intuitively less light had the effect making the universe look 
brighter by reducing glare. Maybe this time is seeing the brightness and 
assuming it's brightness.

by 
On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:20:19 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:

> This is in the news today…. Not what I thought to be the case, nor what I 
> expected to hear. If true cosmologists will need to rework their models of 
> galaxy formation.
>
>  
>
> http://phys.org/news/2014-11-caltech-rocket-cosmic.html
>
> Using an experiment carried into space on a NASA suborbital rocket, 
> astronomers at Caltech and their colleagues have detected a diffuse cosmic 
> glow that appears to represent more light than that produced by known 
> galaxies in the universe.
>
> The researchers, including Caltech Professor of Physics Jamie Bock and 
> Caltech Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Michael Zemcov, say that the best 
> explanation is that the cosmic light—described in a paper published 
> November 7 in the journal *Science*—originates from stars 
>  that were stripped away from their parent 
> galaxies  and flung out into space as 
> those galaxies collided and merged with other galaxies.
>
> The discovery suggests that many such previously undetected stars permeate 
> what had been thought to be dark spaces between galaxies, forming an 
> interconnected sea of stars. "Measuring such large fluctuations surprised 
> us, but we carried out many tests to show the results are reliable," says 
> Zemcov, who led the study.
>
> Although they cannot be seen individually, "the total light produced by 
> these stray stars is about equal to the background light we get from 
> counting up individual galaxies," says Bock, also a senior research 
> scientist at JPL. Bock is the principal investigator of the rocket project, 
> called the Cosmic Infrared Background Experiment, or CIBER, which 
> originated at Caltech and flew on four rocket flights from 2009 through 
> 2013.
>
> In earlier studies, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, which sees the 
> universe at longer wavelengths, had observed a splotchy pattern of infrared 
> light called the cosmic infrared background. The splotches are much bigger 
> than individual galaxies. "We are measuring structures that are grand on a 
> cosmic scale," says Zemcov, "and these sizes are associated with galaxies 
> bunching together on a large-scale pattern." Initially some researchers 
> proposed that this light came from the very first galaxies to form and 
> ignite stars after the Big Bang. Others, however, have argued the light 
> originated from stars stripped from galaxies in more recent times.
>
> CIBER was designed to help settle the debate. "CIBER was born as a 
> conversation with Asantha Cooray, a theoretical cosmologist at UC Irvine 
> and at the time a postdoc at Caltech with [former professor] Marc 
> Kamionkowski," Bock explains. "Asantha developed an idea for studying 
> galaxies by measuring their large-scale structure. Galaxies form in 
> dark-matter halos, which are over-dense regions initially seeded in the 
> early universe by inflation. Furthermore, galaxies not only start out in 
> these halos, they tend to cluster together as well. Asantha had the 
> brilliant idea to measure this large-scale structure directly from maps. 
> Experimentally, it is much easier for us to make a map by taking a 
> wide-field picture with a small camera, than going through and measuring 
> faint galaxies one by one with a large telescope."
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 2:53:28 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2014 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> > LizR wrote: 
> >> On 7 November 2014 12:32, Bruce Kellett   
> >> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> I have not seen your arguments for this, being new to the list, but 
> >> the expansion of the universe is a universal consequence of general 
> >> relativity. So it is built into the laws of physics, and has 
> nothing 
> >> to do with whether or not there ever was a period of rapid 
> inflation. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Expansion or collapse is a consequence of GR, certainly. However I was 
> thinking on a 
> >> larger scale with the EI comment, since EI seems to necessitate the 
> existence of 
> >> expanding universes. Not sure that it can be counted as a TOE though, 
> so it's still in 
> >> need of ultimate explanation.. 
> >> 
> >> The AoT comes from the third law of thermodynamics and has little 
> to 
> >> do with the expansion of the universe. Entropy increases in the 
> same 
> >> direction as the expansion solely because the universe 'began' in a 
> >> state of very low entropy. (The Past Hypothesis). 
> >> 
> >> I didn't realise there was a 3rd law, but anyway - saying the U began 
> in a low entropy 
> >> state begs the question - why did it? The big bang fireball was more or 
> less in 
> >> thermodynamic equilibrium as far as I know, and if it had stopped 
> expanding it would 
> >> have rapidly reached that stage. My point is to explain the 
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry -- typo. I meant the second law, of course. 
> > 
> > I agree that the past hypothesis, while it explains the thermodynamic 
> AoT, itself stands 
> > in need of explanation. This is the great unsolved problem of cosmology 
> -- at least 
> > according to many cosmologists. The initial big bang might be assumed to 
> be in 
> > thermodynaic equilibrium, but that is essentially the same assumption as 
> the assumption 
> > of low entropy. The question remains as to why it was in equilibrium. 
> Generic creation 
> > events might actuallybe expected to produce extremely lumpy universe 
> down to the 
> > smallest scaels. I.e., state with very high entropy. 
>
> What would be the highest possible (and therefore most probable) initial 
> state?  A single 
> black hole?  From an information theoretic viewpoint a universe inflating 
> up from a Planck 
> scale patch would seem most likely - doesn't require any information 
> input. 
>
> Brent 
>

about that increasing states entropy thing. It doesn't work there, but I 
don't see how it would not work for entanglement. when two particles 
entangle the states of the combined system are fewer than the states 0f the 
particles isolated.
 
the interest of that is it could be a glimpse of a small part of an energy 
exchange network that uses entanglement to momentarily reduce entropy to 
obtain workable energy at the right place and point something gets enough 
to happen. 

I mean...it looks reasonable to me...anything involving workable energy 
deserves attention 
The other thought about entropy is there are several different pairings 
available. And it makes a large difference which pairing is selected. Like 
the one above. It was bad pairing to an expanding universe, because it  
isn't just about increase of states availability of states to each 
particular point, including scaling up. entropy makes everything at all 
scales and so on, pan out at the same boundary or within.f Which is the 
furthest extents for it and if there's not hing else in reality, reality 
could be about to go invariant absolutely. Which equilibrium absolutely. 
Which about no energy available to anything to ever happen again

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:07:01 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> LizR wrote: 
> > 
> > (Another way to look at this is that the expansion is producing more 
> > available states for the universe to move into, effectively raising the 
> > entropy ceiling. This means an expanding universe can never reach a 
> > state of equilibrium - this is particularly clear during the BB 
> > fireball, which I would say is very near to equilibrium for a lot of the 
> > time.) 
>
>
> I thought I remembered that someone had written that the idea that the 
> expansion produces more states so the entropy ceiling increases with the 
> expansion of the universe is mistaken. I have found the reference, it is 
> Roger Penrose in 'The Road to Reality' in Section 27.6 (p. 701ff) 
>
> He writes: 
> "There is a common view that the entropy increase in the second law is 
> somehow just a necessary consequence of the expansion of the universe. 
> This opinion seems to be based on the misunderstanding that there are 
> comparatively few degrees of freedom available to the universe when it 
> is 'small', providing some kind of low 'ceiling' to possible entropy 
> values, and more available degrees of freedom when the universe gets 
> larger, giving a higher 'ceiling', thereby allowing higher entropies. ... 
>
> "There are many ways to see that this viewpoint cannot be correct 
> ...The degrees of freedom that are available to the universe are 
> described by the total phase space. The dynamics of GR (which include 
> the degree of freedom defining the universe's size) is just as much 
> described by the motion of our point x in the phase space as are all the 
> other physical processes involved. This phase space is just 'there', and 
> it does not in any sense 'grow with time', time not being part of the 
> phase space. There is no 'ceiling', because all states that are 
> dynamically accessible to the universe (or family of universes) under 
> consideration must be represented in this phase space." 
>
> I recommend Penrose's book for a lucid explanation of these things. 
>

I think the phase space conception is a very good approach. Buton the 
terms of the phase space there are dynamical histories that correspond to 
entropy increasing at parity with expansion, that happens to arrange states 
just about right to get a big pile of sand. 

and I rest my case with that. I'd be an impoverished attorney, and not 
that, being the case

>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 1:27:39 AM UTC, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi Zibbsey,
>
>A new discovery for you. A computer can be a topological shape! A 
> sector of the structures that are invariant under dilations in 
> Sub-Riemannian manifolds is identical to the Lambda calculus. 
>This can be said to imply that spatial relations can "carry" 
> information just as well as sequences of binary symbols.
>

and I actually love category theory wish I'd done it first. 

What follows has its best moments nearer the beginning, but ye should not 
go too far as it becomes a shaggy dog story of bollocks that terminates in 
rant about deutsch 

The word Carry...that was about disputing gravity is explained by space 
time in a substantial sense better. 

I want your help with this. But I don't think I'm sufficiently clear what 
my main point was. The gravity thing is said in terms of that. 

So the main point is, the equations of special relativity will produce 
everything the same, if the whole piece about space time is withdrawn from 
the core theory and in its place a range of visualization tools supporting 
a preparation process for every kind of calculation, that draws everything 
toward intuitively friendly forms. 

It sounds more complex. But it isn't. Because toolsets and tools, cartoons 
what not...this would all be outside theory, as a variation on educational 
courses in some kind of car-crash with a Feynman diagram. 

It isn't theoretical complexity. We don't include guides and cartoons and 
educational feeds when we do Occam. 

But we should look at this the other way too: It would add complexity to 
the formulation and resolution of problems or calculations. This is also a 
separate domain than theory...in the Applied sector. But for the sake of 
the point let's lump it with theory. There is new complexity. However 
proportionate to that, there is new levels of standardization that open up 
a potential to reinforce around junctures most struggled with, heavy 
lifting support. 

What is the balance, more complex or more simple, is demonstratably 
intractably convergent to simplification, with other features too. This is 
because the people it makes life worse for are competent  in current use. 
But reinforcement of this kind is very much distributed as standard steps 
find to skip as soon as your god through that part. So those competent 
don't have to use any of it at all. Or only what they want, and with 
repetition they'll no longer need any of it. 

So its unchanged for them. The truth is they would probably just carry on 
using the space time piece as if in theory. Who cares. They'd have more 
time for that, because time taken to teach competency would be slashed 
right down. Time taken going over getting the direction and relative 
viewtime taken correcting mistakes that had to be traced back through 
hell. All this what I'm saying would deliver. 

The other effect would be a proportionate expansion - numbers but seniority 
levels ...in the more junior direction too. Expansion of people excited and 
looking forward to next, using relativity. Cost of Competency would stretch 
out toward the mean of average ability. Go through it maybe. Change 
attitudes about what it means to be average. It's feasibly the most complex 
structure in the universe to nearest approximation. Average is glory. Maybe 
not dicksize. But other than that. 

So that's my replacement notion. 

Now it's about why is the space time conception methodologically, Occam, 
and intuition savvy minded, a serious mistake with damaging ramifications.
- it's first and foremost because it doesn't need to be assumed in theory. 
As easily it's assumed an enablement metapschor. Basically it's another 
schema on the replacement notion. I mean, it is in practice and usage, 
whether we say so or not. 

- But as a schema in keeping with my replacement. It isn't very effective. 
Using requires visualized translations in complex ways. Correct usage 
requires  competency in the theory, not only equations but conceptions. 
illegal usage, or most common error points are static over decades. I'd bet 
how far a given person gets with practical problems, decides how much they 
try to work with Einstein instead of newton in the future. Two things here 
I'd bet: Relativity proliferation is dormant and has been so since the end 
of the beginning. 

Actually it's going to be in recession pretty much in line with declining 
standards in education. And that matters in my viewa hell of a lot. 
Einstein should have washed newton away within years. Excuses are made 
about this like Newton is still fine for most accuracy and precision 
levels, and newton is a lot easier. 

And this is one of distortions that worse the face of science. A stroke is 
definitely on the radar going by a face like that.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

my nick has an ibbsey ring at that

On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:12:37 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> Zibbsey, you write amazingly like Hibbsa.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:04 PM, > wrote:
>
>> At the moment goofy theories abound, typically that divide into infinity 
>> structures which derive according to whatever is needed for whatever is the 
>> centre piece theory to pass muster. Typically, screen out the infinity 
>> section and what's left just isn't becoming of someone given a desk and a 
>> job for life entrusted with our most precious incumbent knowledge. The 
>> custodians are they who must comprehend value that is there, and through 
>> that understand the properties and continuation, levels of applicability, 
>> the continuation of the necessary meat and potatoes of a scientific 
>> civilization. To compare, to measure, to design, to predict, to solve 
>> dynamical, material, fluidphysical stresses and limits, through structures 
>> and transports, scales...all the same but now better...some new dimension 
>> causing complexity collapses maybe, that new theory explains is because 
>> symmetrical equates to a region that is redundant at this scale, that 
>> wasn't at the scale above. 
>>
>> You know, something a true scientific breakthrough theory would simply 
>> deliver. Something mind boggling before, like emergence, suddenly 
>> understood as something very simple and invariant that doesn't explain 
>> emergence or talk about levels or scales, because all of that is about to 
>> be 
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:14:46 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>I re-read S. Mitra's paper 
>>> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0902.3825v2.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFnc0z9SwLW-HfdQv80vaf6sf0heg>
>>>  
>>> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible 
>>> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of 
>>> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
>>>The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite 
>>> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size 
>>> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information 
>>> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure 
>>> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to 
>>> be looked at carefully.
>>>In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the 
>>> ongoing discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time 
>>> consistent as a 1p world?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>
>>> Stephen Paul King
>>>
>>>
>>>   -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[zibbsey]

At the moment goofy theories abound, typically that divide into infinity 
structures which derive according to whatever is needed for whatever is the 
centre piece theory to pass muster. Typically, screen out the infinity 
section and what's left just isn't becoming of someone given a desk and a 
job for life entrusted with our most precious incumbent knowledge. The 
custodians are they who must comprehend value that is there, and through 
that understand the properties and continuation, levels of applicability, 
the continuation of the necessary meat and potatoes of a scientific 
civilization. To compare, to measure, to design, to predict, to solve 
dynamical, material, fluidphysical stresses and limits, through structures 
and transports, scales...all the same but now better...some new dimension 
causing complexity collapses maybe, that new theory explains is because 
symmetrical equates to a region that is redundant at this scale, that 
wasn't at the scale above. 

You know, something a true scientific breakthrough theory would simply 
deliver. Something mind boggling before, like emergence, suddenly 
understood as something very simple and invariant that doesn't explain 
emergence or talk about levels or scales, because all of that is about to 
be 


On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:14:46 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Hi,
>
>I re-read S. Mitra's paper 
> 
>  
> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible 
> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of 
> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
>The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite 
> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size 
> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information 
> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure 
> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to 
> be looked at carefully.
>In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing 
> discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent 
> as a 1p world?
>
> -- 
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
>
>  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

everything-list@googlegroups.com

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:01:20 AM UTC, Peter Sas wrote:
>
> Haha... The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter 
> concept could not be proven wrong since it was a priori...
>

kant was a great genius and pioneer, and his point was beyond brilliant for 
any reasonable control of the fact he had it in the 18th century. 

No one here or anywhere can say whether or how much his point will 
ultimately bear out. 

When I read your ideas I wasn't sure to reply because what would be right 
to say totally depends on what your age and stage and goals are in these 
ideas. If they are the end of your work, then basically...get nice and 
drunk and then realize all you just said is what every man and his dog 
saysthis far is short of new ground. Attraction repulsion...sure why 
not...we know things are like that a lot. But then there's "things 
absorbing and emiting things" that's a goer as well. The one I use from the 
start is things intersecting. Show me a single point in the space and time 
of reality that one isn't true. 

Or then there's the question about whether it is fundamental. How much so? 
If we listed all the symmetric tautologies we might have 8 or 10, or 30 or 
however many we choose our cut off. If attraction/repulsion first appears 
6th after some others like holographics and fractals and invariant 
indeterminate densitiesthat makes it really fundamental. It's the sixth 
unique conception ever to exist. 

But what if there are only 6? and after that the mix. Or what if attraction 
repulsion is an emergent theme, from other things. 

What I'm saying is that for how far you get things, the question is not 
substantive sufficiently. 

But on the other hand if you are nearer the beginning, 
then.pleasedon't listen to any of these assholes here or anywhere. 
They don't know what's true or how much. Some of them pompously pout about 
that clearly not being true because look at this or that. But they really 
say is that AS NOW this moment, Kant's explanation may not be the whole 
story. 

But the answer As 1950, 1900, 1812, 2032, 2090, these answers will not 
depend on what things appear to be now. Everything people say shows 
something else, can just as easily the resultant of cluster of luscious 
fertile Attraction and Repulsion conjunction. They don't know. Science 
doesn't know. Kant is still in play. 

and so are you dude if those insights came from out of you 

 

>
> But besides that, it remains the case that the electromagnetic force 
> causes positive charges to repel each other and to attract negative 
> charges, which are repellent among themselves. Your description of how a 
> magnetic field works just seems to offer another way of describing the same 
> fact. In other words: can't we say that the electromagnetic force is 
> completely described (on some general level) by noting the repulsive and 
> attractive forces between charges? Or is there more to this force?
>
> Also with respect to Russell's remark about Pauli's exclusion principle 
> (PEP): It says that fermions of the same type cannot have the same quantum 
> state. But how is that different from saying that those fermions repel each 
> other? And what is the status of the PEP? It seems to be independent of the 
> four basic forces. Is it more of a logical principle? For example, Heinz 
> Pagel in his book The Cosmic Code argues that PEP is an application of the 
> logical principle of the identity of indiscernibles to the quantum level. 
> In that case, I would say that the PEP actually provides a good argument 
> for Kant's approach: using logical principles to argue for repulsion as 
> constitutive of matter.
>
> As for the fact that most philosopher's don't propose falsifiable 
> hypotheses... This of course raises the question of what philosophy is 
> supposed to do... I don't think there is on single answer to that question. 
> I agree that a lot of philosophy is just empty words, said to say... Most 
> philosophers, in the Continental tradition anyway, have lost touch with 
> science... But that doesn't mean that philosophers should offer falsifiable 
> claims like scientists. Take for example Popper's principle that claims are 
> scientific iff they are falsifiable (the very principle you implicitly 
> invoked). Is that principle itself falsifiable? Clearly not. We may have 
> some inductive evidence for it (falsifiable theories have worked better 
> through the centuries than non-falsifiable ones). But induction is 
> precisely a principle rejected by Popper and is replaced by the 
> falsification principle as the criterion of good science. It seems then 
> that the falsification principle is an a priori construction that makes 
> science possible. And that is a very Kantian approach...  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 03:26:09 UTC+1 schreef John Clark:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014  Peter Sas  wrote:
>>
>> > Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of

Re: Seeing without seeing...

[zibbsey]

On Thursday, November 6, 2014 7:38:29 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 11/5/2014 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  On 04 Nov 2014, at 22:47, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 11/4/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  On 02 Nov 2014, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 11/2/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>
>  On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:52, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  Are you aware of the Paul-Pavicic "bomb" detector?
>
> http://cds.cern.ch/record/395858/files/9908023.pdf
>  
>
>  I did not know this. Impressive.
>
>  
>   
> It is most easily thought of as non-local in time.
>  
>
>  I will have to think about that. If you can elaborate. I think I intuit 
> what you are saying, but well, I need to work more on this.
>  
>
> Intuitively a photon is encouraged to enter the detector because it is in 
> resonance with an earlier instance of itself that is already circulating in 
> the detector.  The experiment has not actually been done; but I think it 
> would not work if you determined the time of emission of the photon to a 
> precision on the order of the circulation time in the detector.
>  
>
>  Is this based on some (relativistic?)  account of the energy-time 
> "uncertainty relation"?
>
>  I must confess I have some difficulty to grasp your explanation but that 
> might be due to my incompetence. 
>  
>
> More likely a misfire of my intuition.  I base it on their analysis which 
> just takes classical analysis of a continuous EM wave of a single frequency 
> (they note that a CW laser can have a 300Km coherence length so this is a 
> good approximation).  So the solution is an EM field which is constant in 
> time, modulo the traveling phase.  Then they interpret this as a 
> probability amplitude for a single photon.  This implicitly makes the 
> probability amplitude for that single photon dependent on the wave that is 
> assumed to be time invariant.  But then if you push the quantum viewpoint 
> further, that classical wave is just a probability amplitude for photons 
> that came earlier.  
>  
>
>  OK.
>
>  
>  
> Of course like most quantum weirdness the weirdness comes from assigning 
> an interpretation that explicitly splits the wave and particle pictures. 
>  
>
>  Is that not exactly what does the Copenhague dualisme, or von Neumann 
> projection? Hmmm ... ?
>
>  
>  
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4522.pdf
>  
>
>  
>  No problem with that paper. As I am a bit skeptical about non-locality, 
> I am, like the author, certainly annoyed by the language making people 
> believing that there is some retro-causality involved in delayed choice 
> experiment.
>  
>
> I don't know why you should be bothered by that.  The equations are time 
> symmetric and the direction of time is very likely just a statistical 
> feature; so if there are small reversals in isolated systems that's just 
> what one would expect.
>

A difficulty for me with time as not what it seems and not substantive as 
it actually is. Wellwhat about the way time exchanges and 
rotates with things like light, mass, dimensionality, time for one person, 
time for the other. 

It doesn't look to be the way things would need to be if it didn't have 
fundamental secrets to discover. But it might not...but with so 
much unexplained and nothing really satisfyingly explainedI just think 
surely better to keep it all equal if unknown and keep everything in play, 
unless taking it out adds dramatic new knowledge for its loss. 

That's just opinion but if you do got a view on the time as complex at 
relative speeds or whateverI would gladly hear it!  

>
>  
>  Now I will try, perhaps with my students, to get some "clearer" 
> many-world pictures of such non-locality in time.
> Note that the usual Bell type of spatial non-locality is a non-locality in 
> time for any observer in motion with respect to Bob and Alice. In the 
> relativist frame, non-locality is always space-time non-locality. 
>
>  I just saw that Weinberg (in his "lectures on QM") seems to believe that 
> the MWI is automatically non-local, but I guess he points on the MW 
> theories which assumes some instantaneous split of the entire universe. 
> This of course makes no sense. The splitting, or differentiation, goes at 
> the interaction speeds. Superposition are contagious, but not so much as 
> becoming instantaneous. The differentiation can't go faster than light. 
>
>  I saw also that he attributes to Nicolas Gisin a theorem showing that if 
> we make the SWE slightly non linear, we get the possibility of non local 
> interaction between separated observers, that is, instantaneous action at 
> distance. He does not refer to its own similar result. That Weinberg's book 
> is very nice, if a bit short on Bell, QC and foundations, (but then it is 
> nice it refers to that matter, don't avoid Everett, nor Bell, and there are 
> other good books on that topics (like Hirvensalo, for mathematicians, 
> perhaps, or the Gruska book, for Quantum Computation)). 
>  
>
> I just rea

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

All well taken dude, but what you gleaned was available to the author of 
the post peripheral vision the other side of a large living room or a small 
garden. If you'd actually read a few words in you would probably have 
quickly added the insight immediately after the one (funny...and I really 
like that scene) about tgoinghe tirade. I really went out of my way to make 
it obvious I wasn't serious. The tiny snippet sentence and focus even there 
on just one bit at the end. It was like. Steve Martin Dead Men Don't Wear 
Pladwhere the whole movie is about a massive conspiracy he realizes 
after seeing a small tear on a dollar bill. 

But all that was just to entertain you and reel you in. I thought you might 
be, simply because you are the one that knows that post was a throwaway. 
Reel you in because there was some interesting in the consequences...and 
if you maybe got warmed up and excited we could do some mutually 
reinforcing discovery insight shit. 

I think you have to structure things this way nowadays. Otherwise all you 
get from someone's vast actual potential is whatever upchuck is their 
lowest energy repuke for the first pattern match. Not saying you. But we 
all do that unless we're actually swimming the other way. Its the slow 
undercurrent of thingsgoes to the stagnant end. Also, it's better if 
people choose or not choose by their basic sequence of choices, if they 
really want to do this thing, with you thing. I wouldn't with me. I would 
with you. 

On Monday, October 27, 2014 9:08:10 PM UTC, JohnM wrote:

> Dear Zibsey,
> what a response to my short-cut exuberance in my 'agnosticism'! 
> Reminds me Rostand's tirade by Cyrano to the vicompt's brief "Sir, your 
> nose is big"..
> I read it with gusto and - as usual - don't want to argue in detail. t
> I accept it as an addage to my ideas which I never want to get accepted by 
> others. 
> I was expecting a short snap from Brent's (Liz's?) wits - that's all. 
> I do not envy those who make a career in ongoing science, be it 
> financially supported, 
> or just societally rewarding, I was active in 'that' domain for my 1st 1/2 
> century, until I 
> learned to "think" better - for the 2nd half. 
>
> I am glad my note triggered you into participating on this list, usually 
> discussing more
> exciting (scientific?) terms than those godforsaken religious topics we 
> get lately.
>
> Best regards
>
> John Mikes Ph.D. (chem), D.Sc. (sp.polymer techn) and classical music 
> performer.
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:35 PM, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:53:36 PM UTC, JohnM wrote:
>>>
>>> Brent, these guys are SO smart! They even knew how to convert 
>>> infinity into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff. 
>>>
>>> you made a good insight here, so my thanks that you shared it. 
>>
>> Reading the fuller  laid down by you across the whole post, but taking 
>> particular note of the sentence above, in which you do appear to make a 
>> direct causal linkage between two individually distinctive manifestations 
>> of "Smart" normally associated with very different human domains, and as 
>> such kept separate from one-another thus not causally coupled the way you 
>> imply, instead non-interacting. 
>>
>> I'll clarify what I say there in just a moment. But the upshot is...Yes 
>> you are right, I think. This is one of the rare instances  in the history 
>> of Science that awards, scientific status,  influence, authority and 
>> reputation : awhich science in the institutional tense of the word has 
>> evolved its own unique checks and balances and all the other  effects, to 
>> keep things like reputation, awards and the other items above, strongly 
>> convergent with real breakthroughs and advances, at some sort of parity. 
>> Possibly the most successful solution for this in human history. 
>>
>> And it is for that reason, the occurrence of what you imply above is very 
>> rare. Scientists/thinkers can certainly seek financial rewards and better 
>> career conditions. Say, writing a popular science book; Brian Cox 
>> accomplished that kind of success for little more than the fortuitous 
>> "perfect storm" - not really a storm at all...maybe Lou Reedd's Perfect 
>> Day,. Some very positive traits. Some others insubstantial (like much 
>> rehearsed eyes straight into camera and saying  one particular 
>> word..possibly the best anyone has ever said that word "Beautiful". 
>>
>> But Brian Cox's awesomeness and personal advancement has never secured 
>> him even a small upward-notching in the real of Science. He has yet to make 
>> a significant contribution to science - he may one day in the future. But 
>> his celebrity status and profile have not changed his prospects of doing 
>> that at all. In fact, due to access to his ideas being more ready to hand, 
>> the truth is, at least for a cursory look, his depth of understanding of 
>> what by rights he ought to be able to master to earn the desk he occupies; 
>

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 3, 2014 4:28:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Nov 2014, at 02:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>
> > Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>  This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it   
>  restores determinacy and locality in the 3p big "physical"   
>  picture.  In the MW theory, we can explain the violation of Bells   
>  inequality, without using anything non local, or instantaneous.   
>  I took Aspect experiment as a confirmation of the MW idea. 
> >>> 
> >>> This is not so obvious. MWI struggles to explain the violations of   
> >>> Bell's inequality. It can do so only in a very strained way, and   
> >>> that at the price of counterfactual definiteness. It seems to me   
> >>> that this price might be too high. 
> >>> 
> >> One argument for this is perhaps too simple: the SWE is local and   
> >> linear all by itself, so in the Hilbert space of the "universal   
> >> wave", there is no "action at a distance". This can be used, I   
> >> think, to reduce the question of counterfactual definiteness to the   
> >> question of the definiteness of the worlds themselves, and this is   
> >> not yet clear to me. Eventually we have to find the MW view of the   
> >> Kochen & Specker theorem, well, you may be right that this is not   
> >> obvious. 
> >> I will try to do this by myself, and get back if I succeed. I am   
> >> currently explaining (trying to explain to be sure) to a group of   
> >> students how to "reduce" all weirdness of quantum mechanics to only   
> >> one: "the parallel universes", but sometimes I do have a problem   
> >> with the very notion of "universe", which is rarely well defined,   
> >> if define at all. I have always the need to take into account that   
> >> we have a brain-base prejudice on the picture of the "whole", and I   
> >> think that  counterfactual definiteness might be in that category. 
> >> Coming from computationalism, with the mind-body problem as   
> >> motivation, I am somehow prepared to stop believing in "universe".   
> >> Coherent sheaf of dreams, or first person plural sharable   
> >> computations, like the one with computationalism, does not have to   
> >> converge on well defined "universe(s) independent of us", so I am   
> >> not sure if the abandon of counterfactual definiteness would be a   
> >> so high price to me. Eventually it might even be welcome, as   
> >> computationalism might also forbid it, so ... well, I don't know. 
> >> If I succeed in explaining (to me and my students) Bell's   
> >> inequality in a purely local way (with many worlds, or better many   
> >> relative states (capable of perhaps NOT defining worlds, but only   
> >> coherent sharable experience), I will try to sum up the idea here. 
> >> Have you read Deutsch and Hayden paper on this? I know that is well   
> >> debated, but I have not yet found the time to read/understand the   
> >> critics. 
> > 
> > I had not read this paper, but I do not find the proposal   
> > convincing. Deutsch seems merely to point to the fact that one   
> > observes the correlation in a Bell-type experiment only after the   
> > classical transfer of information, just as in any other quantum- 
> > teleportation situation. This might be true, but it is not really an   
> > explanation of the correlations. 
>
> It seems to me that quantum mechanics explain well the correlations,   
> which are consequences of the linearity of the tensor product and of   
> the evolution. Bell, even EPR, assumed implicitly the uniqueness of   
> the outcome after a measurement. 
>
> In fact I challenge the people who believe in non locality to show me   
> an example, with a proof that there is non-locality, and this without   
> adding a collapse.  I don't see how that could even be possible. 
>
> Nor can I make sense of "non-locality" without destroying either   
> special relativity, or so much of physical realism that even a non   
> believer in "primary matter" like me get uneasy feelings. 


 Special Relativity would be exactly the same, but more robust with huge 
assumptions removed. That should be, and I am speaking of SpaceTime as a 
substance of itself. It's a nice intuitive visualization...and seems to be 
a perfect. But it's still a metaphor. It still p totally smacks of exactly 
the kind of 'intuitive' concept we'd fuck up major league on. 

It adds nothing. It explains nothing. It leaves itself totally unexplained 
and sends everyone on wild goose chases. It adds nothing. The theory is the 
same, everything the same. 

It's just a silly, misconception to suggest Gravity is explained by so 
spacetime in a way truly substantial over before. Gravity is just a word 
for a phenomenon. The phenomenon is invariant in terms 
of explanation through the process. Gravity is 'explained' by 'spacetime' 
which is unexplained and carries the same phenomenon. 

 

 

-- 
You receive

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Monday, November 3, 2014 4:28:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Nov 2014, at 02:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>
> > Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>  This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it   
>  restores determinacy and locality in the 3p big "physical"   
>  picture.  In the MW theory, we can explain the violation of Bells   
>  inequality, without using anything non local, or instantaneous.   
>  I took Aspect experiment as a confirmation of the MW idea. 
> >>> 
> >>> This is not so obvious. MWI struggles to explain the violations of   
> >>> Bell's inequality. It can do so only in a very strained way, and   
> >>> that at the price of counterfactual definiteness. It seems to me   
> >>> that this price might be too high. 
> >>> 
> >> One argument for this is perhaps too simple: the SWE is local and   
> >> linear all by itself, so in the Hilbert space of the "universal   
> >> wave", there is no "action at a distance". This can be used, I   
> >> think, to reduce the question of counterfactual definiteness to the   
> >> question of the definiteness of the worlds themselves, and this is   
> >> not yet clear to me. Eventually we have to find the MW view of the   
> >> Kochen & Specker theorem, well, you may be right that this is not   
> >> obvious. 
> >> I will try to do this by myself, and get back if I succeed. I am   
> >> currently explaining (trying to explain to be sure) to a group of   
> >> students how to "reduce" all weirdness of quantum mechanics to only   
> >> one: "the parallel universes", but sometimes I do have a problem   
> >> with the very notion of "universe", which is rarely well defined,   
> >> if define at all. I have always the need to take into account that   
> >> we have a brain-base prejudice on the picture of the "whole", and I   
> >> think that  counterfactual definiteness might be in that category. 
> >> Coming from computationalism, with the mind-body problem as   
> >> motivation, I am somehow prepared to stop believing in "universe".   
> >> Coherent sheaf of dreams, or first person plural sharable   
> >> computations, like the one with computationalism, does not have to   
> >> converge on well defined "universe(s) independent of us", so I am   
> >> not sure if the abandon of counterfactual definiteness would be a   
> >> so high price to me. Eventually it might even be welcome, as   
> >> computationalism might also forbid it, so ... well, I don't know. 
> >> If I succeed in explaining (to me and my students) Bell's   
> >> inequality in a purely local way (with many worlds, or better many   
> >> relative states (capable of perhaps NOT defining worlds, but only   
> >> coherent sharable experience), I will try to sum up the idea here. 
> >> Have you read Deutsch and Hayden paper on this? I know that is well   
> >> debated, but I have not yet found the time to read/understand the   
> >> critics. 
> > 
> > I had not read this paper, but I do not find the proposal   
> > convincing. Deutsch seems merely to point to the fact that one   
> > observes the correlation in a Bell-type experiment only after the   
> > classical transfer of information, just as in any other quantum- 
> > teleportation situation. This might be true, but it is not really an   
> > explanation of the correlations. 
>
> It seems to me that quantum mechanics explain well the correlations,   
> which are consequences of the linearity of the tensor product and of   
> the evolution. Bell, even EPR, assumed implicitly the uniqueness of   
> the outcome after a measurement. 
>
> In fact I challenge the people who believe in non locality to show me   
> an example, with a proof that there is non-locality, and this without   
> adding a collapse.  I don't see how that could even be possible. 
>

There's no reason for expecting we shall see a way for a frontier problem 
that could feasibly be the most mind boggling least intuition friendly 
puzzle every revealed in science. It's ok for that to be the status. It is 
the right status if it is true and most robust. The status can be "we can 
even make sense of what that means...". Trying to throw an explanation at a 
hard fundamental problem is a disaster. No problem was solved this way 
before. Science isn't like the philosophers. Science will wait. Decades, 
generations hundreds of years. Science would leave it there and rest its 
head in scientific dignity than throw daft explanations at profound 
problems. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/opt

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

if you want say the word ctrl del with a rose

What I said looks alright to me mind you. The point could have been 
interpreted personally but I settled that by following up. 

The reason it wasn't personal is that he is definitely going to be an 
obfuscator if he's one of the two (in fact there's a cluster of 
like-concepts all meaning the same goal involving attempts to avoid facing 
Significance and obtain threshold deniability...

The only difference that is significant here is the different contexts the 
words each cater to. Quibbling is much more the individual resistance to an 
argument or idea with clear significance over whatever different he wants 
to do. Quibbling. The word I said would be for Bruno is very much for the 
inventor and proposer of an idea, succumbing to the temptation that we all 
face, all in the same room that is full of mirrors. 

It's a road that is difficult to reverse once begun. Because these words 
are related as a set to the mental processes selected of rationalizing. 
It's very harmful and will fuck you up for life potentially, in terms of 
any ability to discover and contribute to discovery. Because rationalizing 
puts you ever back behind fears and perversions or how they become...when 
we do that because we lose truth and understanding of it; the means to 
locate it and win it back. 

By the way, the reason I said he didn't do that here, is because he 
correctly perceived Significance. You said infinity theories you no longer 
regard as a way forward. I agree. He doesn't. I strongly agree. He strongly 
felt he was losing you. I strongly felt the way you said it was all about 
not want your friend to feel that way and seeing it that way yourself. 

The reason I was convinced was because just google moments earlier, you had 
surprised by what you said to Brent. I sort of keep track of things by 
assuming no news if conversations follow relationship lowpoint. Low because 
we all get the high baby. There's CHEMISTRY between you and Brent. You're 
like the pull back relationship they put in the middle of those American 
light entertainment friends situated in bars gig. Like the "where everybody 
knowsyour name" theme tune. 

It's there...I want some of it! What happens...do they hook up and it works 
but kills the show. Or do they keep going until that moment you know it's a 
shaggy dog story. 

Anyway, you had said something that looked sarcastic to him after he had 
expressed the dim view he took on this infinity business. Yours :harry 
potter, was he there too 

He came back and pointed out quantum mechanic goes the other 
way...constraining, cancelling, etc. You came back with yes that was along 
the lines your comment was nodding. 

If you've come back to where there is at least hope of breakthrough 
discovery. Welcome. You will still be humiliated when that day comes but 
have a reasonable prospect of narrowly escaping the gulag. 

I shall stand and cheer and probably go bolshy and maybe a little camp
..

at least some key person or people. 
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:12:10 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

> you can delete your posts (I think?)
>
> On 30 October 2014 12:07, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> i
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:

 Well that WAS the point of my original post...

 : D

 On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas  wrote:

> Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
>


 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, 
 that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even 
 many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.

 Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post 
 by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)

 Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>> I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . 
>>>
>>
>>  sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment 
>> actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these 
>> words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not 
>> quibbling today. 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
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...@g

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
>>
>> Well that WAS the point of my original post...
>>
>> : D
>>
>> On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas  wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
>>>
>>
>>
>> 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, 
>> that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even 
>> many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.
>>
>> Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by 
>> John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . 
>

 sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment 
actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these 
words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not 
quibbling today. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[zibbsey]

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
>
> Well that WAS the point of my original post...
>
> : D
>
> On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas > 
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
>>
>
>
> 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, 
> that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even 
> many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.
>
> Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by 
> John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)
>
> Bruce
>


I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.