Re: Einstein was right yet again

[Lawrence Crowell]

Well yawn, what else would we expect? I do though wonder how they account 
for the differential gravitational acceleration due to tidal interaction 
and Weyl curvature.

LC

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:26:14 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> The "MICROSCOPE" experiment was devised to test Einstein's equivalence 
> principle with 100 times greater precision than had ever been achieved 
> before, the idea that all objects fall in a gravitational field at exactly 
> the same speed. MICROSCOPE consisted of a 402 gram platinum cylinder inside 
> a 300 gram titanium outer cylinder that was in orbit for 2 1/2 years. Any 
> deviations from the equivalence principle would cause the two cylinders to 
> move relative to each other, but no such movement was detected, so any 
> violation of the equivalency principle must be less than one part in a 
> thousand trillion or 10^15. An even more precise satellite, MICROSCOPE-2, 
> is planned to be launched by 2030 and it will test it to one part in 10^18.
>
> MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> rwe
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44c5106a-77c1-4be7-97eb-07e7eb4f67a8n%40googlegroups.com.

Einstein was right yet again

[John Clark]

The "MICROSCOPE" experiment was devised to test Einstein's equivalence
principle with 100 times greater precision than had ever been achieved
before, the idea that all objects fall in a gravitational field at exactly
the same speed. MICROSCOPE consisted of a 402 gram platinum cylinder inside
a 300 gram titanium outer cylinder that was in orbit for 2 1/2 years. Any
deviations from the equivalence principle would cause the two cylinders to
move relative to each other, but no such movement was detected, so any
violation of the equivalency principle must be less than one part in a
thousand trillion or 10^15. An even more precise satellite, MICROSCOPE-2,
is planned to be launched by 2030 and it will test it to one part in 10^18.

MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rwe

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv328_KqSpKr2YXhk2UQKEVBAYWJ-VT%2BC7ssJUt1e2m6ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: Astronomers Find What Might Be the Most Distant Galaxy Yet

[John Clark]

This galaxy is 90 million light years further away and thus 90 million
years older than the previous record for the oldest galaxy, it was only 330
million years after the big bang. We should be able to get a much better
look at it in a few months with the new Web telescope.
--
Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you'll be able to read it for free.

Astronomers Find What Might Be the Most Distant Galaxy Yet

Is the object a galaxy of primordial stars or a black hole knocking on the
door of time? The Webb space telescope may help answer that question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/science/astronomers-distant-galaxy.html?unlocked_article_code=CEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DJDm4diP8eAoWG8EqKbLF_fdw12DGWXsQEPL40WPV00qpQNkhkWxjuooeBnN5NBRQJnr-JfzF82YPRD_d_-CX2b2K9JaAknuSx4U2Ka33gWfPUzXFxdgx68ZNifEX6i3MPkq6UGuRz09NuzLx2UMABMDQEYimIvfHuAwwve4nVK0GBtXRlHr1RSjrRntWD6r8fcQs0CV7OTHx34GZU-8oLcZpMf_65d0h8DZK41bYBCWVoL5OrA4kzQeXXk7Zptr3PoX-c2SmlAnxWQHW0rnjiRaHZYis=em-share

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv26pWdL9OHoReEFwDCtBoVDnzoDZ63wzh7yt35Xt3daeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I don't see us disagreeing on the effects of the Citizens United ruling of 
2010. It made things worse, if one doesn't like an oligarchy? This is also a 
reason to disdain a political system, where the "Rule of law," by John Adams, 
simply ends up being the Rule by Lawyers. We need a change but to what and how? 
I am all ears and am merely one more peasant who likes the idea of a better 
government system-better for the middle class. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2021 6:05 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6


On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM  wrote:
 

 > I tell you the main threat to my or your personal safety are not currently 
 > the goose-steppers, but instead, globalist corporations bribing US pols.

No, bribery is illegal and what those corporations did was not illegal. And why 
is it not illegal? Why are super mega ultra rich people and corporations 
allowed to give as much money as they like to politicians for their election 
campaigns? Because of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. And 
why did the Supreme Court decide that way?  Because right wing judges were 
appointed by right wing Republicans to be on that court. Today the supreme 
court is even more right wing than it was then because, although Republicans 
have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, 
nevertheless Republican presidents have appointed 6 of the 9 members currently 
on the Supreme Court, including 3 that were appointed by the only President in 
American history to opposed the peaceful transfer of power when his term ended. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

qq19

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/978206807.2986620.1625591852383%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM  wrote:


> * > I tell you the main threat to my or your personal safety are not
> currently the goose-steppers, but instead, globalist corporations bribing
> US pols.*
>

No, bribery is illegal and what those corporations did was not illegal. And
why is it not illegal? Why are super mega ultra rich people and
corporations allowed to give as much money as they like to politicians for
their election campaigns? Because of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens
United decision. And why did the Supreme Court decide that way?  Because
right wing judges were appointed by right wing Republicans to be on that
court. Today the supreme court is even more right wing than it was then
because, although Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8
presidential elections, nevertheless Republican presidents have appointed 6
of the 9 members currently on the Supreme Court, including 3 that were
appointed by the only President in American history to opposed the peaceful
transfer of power when his term ended.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


qq19

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv19U%2BUEpfDbbYyhRgCj_ZrxKBcXRQ9bjM1ud_XyjW9wCw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Ah, innuendo from a Trumpy person, moi?
You know, I stumbled upon (yes really) this academic study and it seems to fit 
the truth. It is not our Trumpkin selves that have gone off the map, but the 
Wokies that will initiate what appears, given a crisis, will be a national 
conflict. 
Cast thy Fascist hating eyes in this direction and render forth your reply-
https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./asap.12253


-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 5, 2021 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

 
  On 7/5/2021 4:39 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 
I am in no way even sarcastically courageous. I don't see the idiot convention 
on January 6th as such a big deal. You yourself have basically dismissed the 
series of riots in 2020, that affected the "little man," in 2020 in their 
"outrage" over police killings as no big thing. Thus, I too adopt your opinion 
and become dismissive as well, even though the big wigs were the only ones 
disturbed while the victims of BLM and Antifa number in the thousands. Do you 
know what the latest rumor (as yet unproven) was that the shooter of Ashli 
Babbitt was one of Mike Pence's security. Is this true? No idea. Ironic, if 
true yes? What was she doing? No answers. So those in power may be looking out 
strictly for their own asses? That'd be a new one on me, I tell ya. 
  That's the kind of dishonest innuendo I expect from a Trumpkin.  The 
Congressmen were there to validate the peaceful transfer of political power.  
The Trumpkins were there to prevent it and to install Trump by a coup.  To 
overthrow democracy in the U.S.  In no way comparable to a demonstration 
against police brutality.  Let's see you cite data on the number of "victims of 
BLM and Antifa".    You just spew out crap from Infowars
  Brent
  
  
  
  
 -Original Message-
 From: John Clark 
 To: spudboy...@aol.com
 Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Mon, Jul 5, 2021 7:25 pm
 Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6
 
 On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM  wrote:

   
 > yeah nazis bad 
 
  Thanks a bunch for making that courageous statement, but I'd still like to 
know why you think the January 6 capital building invasion was funny.    
  
 > DNC now is trying is the American equivalent of calling the Jan 6, the US 
 > version of the 1933 Reichstag Fire. 
 
  I know you didn't actually look at that video I posted about the January 6 
Capitol Building invasion by Trump's mob, but if you had maybe you would 
understand why I'm so mystified by your comments. I watch the video so who do 
you expect me to believe, my eyes or you?    
  
 > Now, I did have blood relatives go up adolf's chimneys,  
 
  Then why the hell do you support people who think the two greatest men in 
human history are Donald and Adolphe?!   
 > and I tell you the main threat to my or your personal safety are not 
 > currently the goose-steppers, but instead, globalist corporations 
 
  If you don't like corporations then why the hell do you support Trump and his 
political party that lowered corporate tax rates, lowered income tax for the 
super mega ultra rich, and wants to get rid of the inheritance tax so the 
American aristocracy can continue forever down the generations undiminished in 
its power.  I'd tell you to watch the excellent video that Lawrence just posted 
about the wealth gap but I know you won't watch that one anymore than you watch 
mine about the January 6 coup d'état attempt.  I just don't get you, to me your 
motivation is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. 
  
 > we must be prepared for whatever nutcase strikes.  
 
  Republicans don't yet have a monopoly on nutcases, but thanks to Trump and 
Qanon they're getting close.     
 > This means to use and apply the 2nd amendment, and gun up 
 
  Yeah, that's the trouble with the world today, there just aren't enough guns. 
    John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis kknn 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit  
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LvkxD7eVGc6XLiyHR61rHgEt1fmKT9oX4YtWEHj5Q3g%40mail.gmail.com
 .
  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/170203203.2915138.1625528391169%40mail.yahoo.com.
 
 -- 

Re: The best video yet about January 6

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/5/2021 4:39 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
I am in no way even sarcastically courageous. I don't see the idiot 
convention on January 6th as such a big deal. You yourself have 
basically dismissed the series of riots in 2020, that affected the 
"little man," in 2020 in their "outrage" over police killings as no 
big thing. Thus, I too adopt your opinion and become dismissive as 
well, even though the big wigs were the only ones disturbed while the 
victims of BLM and Antifa number in the thousands. Do you know what 
the latest rumor (as yet unproven) was that the shooter of Ashli 
Babbitt was one of Mike Pence's security. Is this true? No idea. 
Ironic, if true yes? What was she doing? No answers. So those in power 
may be looking out strictly for their own asses? That'd be a new one 
on me, I tell ya.


That's the kind of dishonest innuendo I expect from a Trumpkin. The 
Congressmen were there to validate the peaceful transfer of political 
power.  The Trumpkins were there to prevent it and to install Trump by a 
coup.  To overthrow democracy in the U.S.  In no way comparable to a 
demonstration against police brutality. Let's see you cite data on the 
number of "victims of BLM and Antifa".    You just spew out crap from 
Infowars


Brent





-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Mon, Jul 5, 2021 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:


> /yeah nazis bad/


Thanks a bunch for making that courageous statement, but I'd still 
like to know why you think the January 6 capital building invasion was 
funny.


>///DNC now is trying is the American equivalent of calling the Jan
6, the US version of the 1933 Reichstag Fire./


I know you didn't actually look at that video I posted about the 
January 6 Capitol Building invasion by Trump's mob, but if you had 
maybe you would understand why I'm so mystified by your comments. I 
watch the video so who do you expect me to believe, my eyes or you?


/> Now, I did have blood relatives go up adolf's chimneys, /


Then why the hell do you support people who think the twogreatest men 
in human history are Donald and Adolphe?!


/> and I tell you the main threat to my or your personal safety
are not currently the goose-steppers, but instead, globalist
corporations/


If you don't like corporations then why the hell do you support Trump 
and his political party that lowered corporate tax rates, lowered 
income tax for the super mega ultra rich, and wants to get rid of the 
inheritance tax so the American aristocracy can continue forever down 
the generations undiminished in its power.  I'd tell you to watch the 
excellent video that Lawrence just posted about the wealth gap but I 
know you won't watch that one anymore than you watch mine about the 
January 6 coup d'état attempt.  I just don't get you, to me your 
motivation is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.


/> we must be prepared for whatever nutcase strikes. /


Republicans don't yet have a monopoly on nutcases, but thanks to Trump 
and Qanon they're getting close.


/> This means to use and apply the 2nd amendment, and gun up/


Yeah, that's the trouble with the world today, there just aren't 
enough guns.

//
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

kknn

--
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 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LvkxD7eVGc6XLiyHR61rHgEt1fmKT9oX4YtWEHj5Q3g%40mail.gmail.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LvkxD7eVGc6XLiyHR61rHgEt1fmKT9oX4YtWEHj5Q3g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> 


.
--
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 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/170203203.2915138.1625528391169%40mail.yahoo.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/170203203.2915138.1625528391169%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
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...@google

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I am in no way even sarcastically courageous. I don't see the idiot convention 
on January 6th as such a big deal. You yourself have basically dismissed the 
series of riots in 2020, that affected the "little man," in 2020 in their 
"outrage" over police killings as no big thing. Thus, I too adopt your opinion 
and become dismissive as well, even though the big wigs were the only ones 
disturbed while the victims of BLM and Antifa number in the thousands. Do you 
know what the latest rumor (as yet unproven) was that the shooter of Ashli 
Babbitt was one of Mike Pence's security. Is this true? No idea. Ironic, if 
true yes? What was she doing? No answers. So those in power may be looking out 
strictly for their own asses? That'd be a new one on me, I tell ya. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Mon, Jul 5, 2021 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM  wrote:


> yeah nazis bad

Thanks a bunch for making that courageous statement, but I'd still like to know 
why you think the January 6 capital building invasion was funny.   

> DNC now is trying is the American equivalent of calling the Jan 6, the US 
> version of the 1933 Reichstag Fire.

I know you didn't actually look at that video I posted about the January 6 
Capitol Building invasion by Trump's mob, but if you had maybe you would 
understand why I'm so mystified by your comments. I watch the video so who do 
you expect me to believe, my eyes or you?   

> Now, I did have blood relatives go up adolf's chimneys, 

Then why the hell do you support people who think the two greatest men in human 
history are Donald and Adolphe?! 
> and I tell you the main threat to my or your personal safety are not 
> currently the goose-steppers, but instead, globalist corporations

If you don't like corporations then why the hell do you support Trump and his 
political party that lowered corporate tax rates, lowered income tax for the 
super mega ultra rich, and wants to get rid of the inheritance tax so the 
American aristocracy can continue forever down the generations undiminished in 
its power.  I'd tell you to watch the excellent video that Lawrence just posted 
about the wealth gap but I know you won't watch that one anymore than you watch 
mine about the January 6 coup d'état attempt.  I just don't get you, to me your 
motivation is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

> we must be prepared for whatever nutcase strikes. 

Republicans don't yet have a monopoly on nutcases, but thanks to Trump and 
Qanon they're getting close.   
> This means to use and apply the 2nd amendment, and gun up

Yeah, that's the trouble with the world today, there just aren't enough guns.   
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropoliskknn
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LvkxD7eVGc6XLiyHR61rHgEt1fmKT9oX4YtWEHj5Q3g%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/170203203.2915138.1625528391169%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM  wrote:

> *yeah nazis bad*
>

Thanks a bunch for making that courageous statement, but I'd still like to
know why you think the January 6 capital building invasion was funny.

> *DNC now is trying is the American equivalent of calling the Jan 6, the
> US version of the 1933 Reichstag Fire.*
>

I know you didn't actually look at that video I posted about the January 6
Capitol Building invasion by Trump's mob, but if you had maybe you would
understand why I'm so mystified by your comments. I watch the video so who
do you expect me to believe, my eyes or you?

*> Now, I did have blood relatives go up adolf's chimneys, *
>

Then why the hell do you support people who think the two greatest men in
human history are Donald and Adolphe?!


> *> and I tell you the main threat to my or your personal safety are not
> currently the goose-steppers, but instead, globalist corporations*
>

If you don't like corporations then why the hell do you support Trump and
his political party that lowered corporate tax rates, lowered income tax
for the super mega ultra rich, and wants to get rid of the inheritance tax
so the American aristocracy can continue forever down the generations
undiminished in its power.  I'd tell you to watch the excellent video that
Lawrence just posted about the wealth gap but I know you won't watch that
one anymore than you watch mine about the January 6 coup d'état attempt.  I
just don't get you, to me your motivation is a riddle, wrapped in a
mystery, inside an enigma.

*> we must be prepared for whatever nutcase strikes. *
>

Republicans don't yet have a monopoly on nutcases, but thanks to Trump and
Qanon they're getting close.


> *> This means to use and apply the 2nd amendment, and gun up*
>

Yeah, that's the trouble with the world today, there just aren't enough
guns.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
kknn

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LvkxD7eVGc6XLiyHR61rHgEt1fmKT9oX4YtWEHj5Q3g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

The officer who died during the riot, unless new evidence has emerged to the 
contrary, died of a heart attack. Beyond this yeah nazis bad, lets kick them in 
their balls. Let us also do this to Antifa drones, and Islamists. Good. Dems 
always look to the past, and what Team DNC now is trying is the American 
equivalent of calling the Jan 6, the US version of the 1933 Reichstag Fire. As 
a tactic it works for democrats, but for independent amd rep voters-unlikely. 
All Don can do is agitate and unless the economy is tanked he will appeal to 
reps and independents as Bob Dole did in 1996 against Bubba Clinton. You may be 
obsessed about the man, but I am not. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Mon, Jul 5, 2021 5:42 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 7:14 PM  wrote:


> You want us all to be nazis because you need us all to be nazis because you 
> hate orange man.

If not "Nazi" what would you call Trump's mob of thugs who beat a police 
officer to death and violently invaded the Capital Building on its most 
important day in 4 years, when both houses of Congress and the vice president 
were to certify the election of the next president, all the while carrying 
confederate flags and Trump flags and smearing their feces on the building's 
walls and wearing "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirts? Have you found a new more 
pleasant euphemism for "Nazi"?

> what happens if the trumpkins just walk away from the dem mix of incompetence 
> + fascism?

If the Democrats really were a mixture of incompetence and fascism then I have 
no doubt you would be an ardent Democrat as your preferred form of government 
is clearly a right wing fascist dictatorship, and nobody is more stunningly 
incompetent than your hero Donald J Trump. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bn62


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/392032062.2854207.1625523007377%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 7:14 PM  wrote:

*> You want us all to be nazis because you need us all to be nazis because
> you hate orange man.*
>

If not "Nazi" what would you call Trump's mob of thugs who beat a police
officer to death and violently invaded the Capital Building on its most
important day in 4 years, when both houses of Congress and the vice
president were to certify the election of the next president, all the while
carrying confederate flags and Trump flags and smearing their feces on the
building's walls and wearing "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirts? Have you found a
new more pleasant euphemism for "Nazi"?

*> what happens if the trumpkins just walk away from the dem mix of
> incompetence + fascism?*
>

If the Democrats really were a mixture of incompetence and fascism then I
have no doubt you would be an ardent Democrat as your preferred form of
government is clearly a right wing fascist dictatorship, and nobody is more
stunningly incompetent than your hero Donald J Trump.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


bn62

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wZc3WUCEmjEE9foYS0CMZBMRGFzOxNrpyfLDbv1zZtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Nada, Lawrence. There is a money line to be followed from the funders of the 
democratic party, to who gets elected prosecutors, who get to rule on whether 
arrests are valid, who get to decide on who stayed in jail at a time of plague, 
to who are the defense attorneys, all SPLC + now the New soviet minded ACLU, 
providing pro-bono services for the arrested, to calling arson as mostly 
peaceful from your dnc media, etc, ad nauseum. The protests and riots and arson 
against police shootings of black males are unplanned, but it is the reaction 
to such shootings that are obviously coordinated.This, then, is like former 
mayor, and Obama chief of staff's cogent remark, "never let a good crisis go to 
waste." For the rightwingers at the capital, it appears that nobody supported 
them, not even DJT,* but this is the typical repub reaction (elites) they look 
strictly out for their own asses. 
If there was a conspiracy to rob orange man at the ballot box, (which I have 
yet to see convincing evidence of), it surely wasn't the recipients' of 
corporate largesse, BLM +Antifa, but the boards of directors themselves. What 
motivation you ask? I would say China trade money, Orange man placed trade 
tariffs on China goods. The big corps wanted their China money back so did the 
dirty work. Did this happen in real life? Well, we need evidence presented, if 
true?
What of Joe's future with Chinese empower Xi? Well, even though his family took 
cash from Xi's CCP, I think he will be treated badly, not because he wants 
confrontation with Xi, but because Xi and his party wants it. It unites China 
behind the Party is why. As House Speaker (dem) Tip O'Neal once joked, 
"Politics is like making love with an 800 lb gorilla. You don't stop when you 
want to, you stop when the gorilla wants to." Thus, I fear for what Xi will do 
and how well the US will fare? Also. everyone should keep their eyes on the 
economy, energy supplies, especially inflation. This then, is what influences 
politics, and we all must dance whether we wish to or not, Like the Plague 
dancers of Europe, given Covid, is not entirely 
unrelated.https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/jul/05/bizarre-dance-epidemic-of-summer-1518-strasbourg



* Duly noted that DJT hasn't spoken about the Jan 6 rioters. 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2021 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

The demonstrations last summer were not a Democratic party coordinated set of 
events. They rather spontaneously happened on their own. To the extent there 
was rioting, which was not nearly as extensive as you seem to think, it was 
minor stuff compared to a coordinated attempt to overthrow Congress by a mob 
incited by t'Rump, where that mob had a measure of planning on the part of 
various right winged groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. 
LC
On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in democratic 
party run cities all of 2020. Your estimation of me carries no water because as 
enter into a time national and perhaps global crisis, I haven't the time for 
such minor things as meeting a democrats level of approval. As with Orange Man 
and his voters you and your fellows would do away with us, if and when you can. 
So you have already, as Dilbert cartoonist, Scott Adams have often said, 
"talking past the sell." I get where your are coming from but consider the 
"shock value," you seem to want, irrelevant. This becomes irrelevant as we 
slide into a national physical split, which I believe is possible and perhaps, 
inevitable. 
So as to not make your earnest reply of no value, I respond with an nice 
Youtube video concerning what seems to be a material advance in both resources 
and production. Enjoy. 
(non-political)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uznXI8wrdag


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudb...@aol.com
Cc: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 6:11 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:26 PM  wrote:



>> This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events of 
>> January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the 
>> government:
How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol





> Laff of the day! 

If you find that video to be funny then you are a very sick man. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d2e1024-de4b-4402-9cd8-6d3cf01fb52bn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received th

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

You want us all to be nazis because you need us all to be nazis because you 
hate orange man. The dem voting base wants a dictatorship run by the boards of 
directors who run your woke corporations, who fund your democrats and and yeah, 
the reps too. My assertion is: We Agree On Nothing. has meaning What this means 
is that if we enter hard economic times, which your party will blame on trump 
and his voters,  it will likely cause a split, perhaps permanent, in the US? It 
will be exacerbated by political repression via, dem laws and practices of 
their executive branch. This is a guess on my part and have been wrong before. 
If things become severe in the US, I ask now, what happens if the trumpkins 
just walk away from the dem mix of incompetence + fascism? I would opt for the 
Gandhi response to the corporations and institutions. We will see if things go 
under, or not? 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2021 6:57 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:00 AM  wrote:


> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in democratic 
> party run cities all of 2020.

Mr. Potato Head, did you actually look at this video? 
How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol

There is nothing, absolutely positively NOTHING, in all of American history 
that is comparable with the events of January 6, 2021 that are so well 
documented in this video; not even during the Civil War did a mob of traitors 
manage to carry the confederate flag into the US Capitol Building, but Trump's 
thugs did.  And I repeat the question I've been asking you over and over again 
but have yet to receive an answer: WHAT THE HELL DOES THE BLACK LIVES MATTERS 
PROTESTS HAVE TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP'S  COUP D'ETAT ATTEMPT?!

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
b835

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21653.3031279.1625440494125%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[Lawrence Crowell]

The demonstrations last summer were not a Democratic party coordinated set 
of events. They rather spontaneously happened on their own. To the extent 
there was rioting, which was not nearly as extensive as you seem to think, 
it was minor stuff compared to a coordinated attempt to overthrow Congress 
by a mob incited by t'Rump, where that mob had a measure of planning on the 
part of various right winged groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath 
Keepers. 

LC

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in 
> democratic party run cities all of 2020. Your estimation of me carries no 
> water because as enter into a time national and perhaps global crisis, I 
> haven't the time for such minor things as meeting a democrats level of 
> approval. As with Orange Man and his voters you and your fellows would do 
> away with us, if and when you can. So you have already, as Dilbert 
> cartoonist, Scott Adams have often said, "talking past the sell." I get 
> where your are coming from but consider the "shock value," you seem to 
> want, irrelevant. This becomes irrelevant as we slide into a national 
> physical split, which I believe is possible and perhaps, inevitable.  
>
> So as to not make your earnest reply of no value, I respond with an nice 
> Youtube video concerning what seems to be a material advance in both 
> resources and production. Enjoy. (non-political)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uznXI8wrdag
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: spudb...@aol.com
> Cc: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 6:11 am
> Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:26 PM  wrote:
>
> >> This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events 
> of January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the 
> government:
> How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0>
>
>
> *> Laff of the day! *
>
>
> If you find that video to be funny then you are a very sick man. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d2e1024-de4b-4402-9cd8-6d3cf01fb52bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:00 AM  wrote:

*> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in
> democratic party run cities all of 2020.*
>

Mr. Potato Head, did you actually look at this video?

How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0>

There is nothing, absolutely positively NOTHING, in all of American history
that is comparable with the events of January 6, 2021 that are so well
documented in this video; not even during the Civil War did a mob of
traitors manage to carry the confederate flag into the US Capitol Building,
but Trump's thugs did.  And I repeat the question I've been asking you over
and over again but have yet to receive an answer: *WHAT THE HELL DOES THE
BLACK LIVES MATTERS PROTESTS HAVE TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP'S  COUP D'ETAT
ATTEMPT?!*

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
b835

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1xsXUUtqw%3Da-aAcQvY%3DsQQAtK%3D2CVo5u1sfUnW0Uow1g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in democratic 
party run cities all of 2020. Your estimation of me carries no water because as 
enter into a time national and perhaps global crisis, I haven't the time for 
such minor things as meeting a democrats level of approval. As with Orange Man 
and his voters you and your fellows would do away with us, if and when you can. 
So you have already, as Dilbert cartoonist, Scott Adams have often said, 
"talking past the sell." I get where your are coming from but consider the 
"shock value," you seem to want, irrelevant. This becomes irrelevant as we 
slide into a national physical split, which I believe is possible and perhaps, 
inevitable. 
So as to not make your earnest reply of no value, I respond with an nice 
Youtube video concerning what seems to be a material advance in both resources 
and production. Enjoy. 
(non-political)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uznXI8wrdag


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 6:11 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:26 PM  wrote:



>> This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events of 
>> January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the 
>> government:
How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol





> Laff of the day! 

If you find that video to be funny then you are a very sick man. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86735977.2729364.1625371246368%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:26 PM  wrote:

>> This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events
>> of January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the
>> government:
>> How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0>
>
>
> *> Laff of the day! *


If you find that video to be funny then you are a very sick man.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0sJiouodNJBQFt6NhzZJEovBwP-xdF5oXv20NQewcotQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Laff of the day! 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 2, 2021 12:47 pm
Subject: The best video yet about January 6

This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events of 
January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the 
government:
How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
lkj5
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2UQJfJmL%3D360oynULPN%3DEm_Fy4WwfL%2BoxvekKg%2BmHhBA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/203681928.2485260.1625250381644%40mail.yahoo.com.

The best video yet about January 6

[John Clark]

This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events of
January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the
government:

How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
lkj5

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2UQJfJmL%3D360oynULPN%3DEm_Fy4WwfL%2BoxvekKg%2BmHhBA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: LIGO detects the largest black hole merger yet

[Lawrence Crowell]

 

To be honest I have found the preponderance of black holes in the 30 to 60 
solar mass range to be odd. It would take a really large star to generate a 
black hole that massive. These would be red supergiant stars or stars such 
as the Pistol star. These are one in a many thousands of stars.

Yet it is not too hard to imagine a 20 solar mass BH that orbits another 
large star, where the star is consumed. So this results in a larger mass 
BH. This might then over time occur again. It is possible one of these BHs 
in the 85 + 66 solar mass BHs came from a prior BH merger. That does seem a 
bit improbable. Of course their merger into a 142 solar mass BH has 
produced a BH that is technically also “impossible.”

LC

On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 8:54:44 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> In today's issue of Physical Review Letters the two Lego detectors in the 
> US and the Virgo detector in Italy announced they had detected on May 21 
> 2019 the gravitational waves from the merger of two Black Holes of 65 and 
> 85 Solar masses which produced a Black Hole of 142 solar masses with 8 
> solar masses of matter being converted into the energy of gravitational 
> waves. It was the largest merger of Black Holes ever detected by 
> gravitational waves and one of the most distant at 11.3 billion light 
> years. An optical counterpart of this merger seems to have also been 
> detected so it must've happened in a region rich in gas and dust.
>
> It's not clear how the two progenitor black holes could've been made, 65 
> solar masses is really big, it's pushing the edge of the possible for a 
> single supergiant star to have produced according to our current 
> understanding of stellar evolution, and it's hard to see how they could 
> have themselves been formed by mergers 11.3 billion years ago of smaller 
> Black Holes in the short amount of time since the Big Bang. But science 
> thrives on mystery.
>
> A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 Suns 
> <https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102>
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f04247f-a97d-495f-b5fb-a3612ca4ae2bn%40googlegroups.com.

LIGO detects the largest black hole merger yet

[John Clark]

In today's issue of Physical Review Letters the two Lego detectors in the
US and the Virgo detector in Italy announced they had detected on May 21
2019 the gravitational waves from the merger of two Black Holes of 65 and
85 Solar masses which produced a Black Hole of 142 solar masses with 8
solar masses of matter being converted into the energy of gravitational
waves. It was the largest merger of Black Holes ever detected by
gravitational waves and one of the most distant at 11.3 billion light
years. An optical counterpart of this merger seems to have also been
detected so it must've happened in a region rich in gas and dust.

It's not clear how the two progenitor black holes could've been made, 65
solar masses is really big, it's pushing the edge of the possible for a
single supergiant star to have produced according to our current
understanding of stellar evolution, and it's hard to see how they could
have themselves been formed by mergers 11.3 billion years ago of smaller
Black Holes in the short amount of time since the Big Bang. But science
thrives on mystery.

A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 Suns


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3m0Fh5FTKMMfTiA8JTT9jL-2Tz-j4qPzbuy5R7myp5zw%40mail.gmail.com.

Religious Idiocy Triumphs Over Science Yet Again

[John Clark]

The Thirty Meter Telescope on top of Mauna Kea would have been by far the
largest telescope in the world , but now it looks like it will never be
built because today the Hawaiian Supreme Court rescinded its  construction
permit ; they think it would offend the religious sensibilities of the
native Hawaiians who believe the place is not really a  mountain but is
"Wao Akua," the realm of the Gods where the Earth Mother met the Sky Father
, or some such crapola. The court decreed that building an instrument that
would teach us more about the universe would somehow defile the sacredness
of the place. So in the fight between cosmology and Wao Akua the law
decreed that Wao Akua and ignorance is more important than Science and
knowledge. The Republican presidential candidates should be pleased.

  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.

And yet...

[Rex Allen]

This world of dew
is only a world of dew -
and yet, and yet...
-- Kobayashi Issa, after the death of his daughter.


This world of quantum states
is only a world of quantum states -
and yet, and yet...
-- Rex Allen, after a very cold shower.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: And yet...

[LizR]

...and yet, and yet, one has this ineffable feeling there's more to life...?


On 5 December 2013 03:02, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:

 This world of dew
 is only a world of dew -
 and yet, and yet...
 -- Kobayashi Issa, after the death of his daughter.


 This world of quantum states
 is only a world of quantum states -
 and yet, and yet...
 -- Rex Allen, after a very cold shower.

  --
 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/groups/opt_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/groups/opt_out.

Yet another interpretation of the M-M experiment.

[Roger Clough]

Yet another interpretation of the M-M experiment (that light travelled 
at the same speed regardless of direction) is that as the Bible says, the 
earth is fixed, and presumably the aether with it. So no relative motion 
problem. 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/11/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Roger Clough  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-11, 11:40:34 
Subject: Is there an aether ? 


M-M did find that the speed of light was independent of direction.  
If there were an aether, and light propagated through it as a wave,  
and since the earth would be moving through the ether, then light should travel 
at  
different speeds in different directions.  

But it didn't. So either there's no ether, or light has a  
fixed velocity. Same physical result, so take your pick  
of interpretations.  





__._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic 
Messages in this topic (2)  

Recent Activity: New Members 2  
Visit Your Group  
 Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use ? Send us 
Feedback .  

__,_._,___

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Oct 2012, at 10:27, Brett Hall wrote:


On 12/10/2012, at 16:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 10 Oct 2012, at 10:44, a b wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Brett Hall brhal...@hotmail.com
 wrote:
 On 09/10/2012, at 16:38, hibbsa asb...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-real-reasons-we-dont-have-agi-yet

 Ben Goertzel's article that hibbsa sent and linked to above says  
in
 paragraph 7 that,I salute David Deutsch’s boldness, in writing  
and

 thinking about a field where he obviously doesn’t have much
 practical grounding. Sometimes the views of outsiders with very
 different backgrounds can yield surprising insights. But I don’t
 think this is one of those times. In fact, I think Deutsch’s
 perspective on AGI is badly mistaken, and if widely adopted, would
 slow down progress toward AGI dramatically. The real reasons we
 don’t have AGI yet, I believe, have nothing to do with Popperian
 philosophy, and everything to do with:... (Then he listed some
 things).

 That paragraph quoted seems an appeal to authority in an
 underhanded way. In a sense it says (in a condescending manner)
 that DD has little practical grounding in this subject and can
 probably be dismissed on that basis...but let's look at what he
 says anyways. As if practical grounding by the writer would
 somehow have made the arguments themselves valid or more valid (as
 though that makes sense). The irony is, Goertzel in almost the  
next

 breath writes that AGI has nothing to do with Popperian
 philosophy... Presumably, by his own criterion, he can only make
 that comment with any kind of validity if he has practical
 grounding in Popperian epistemology? It seems he has indeed
 written quite a bit on Popper...but probably as much as DD has
 written on stuff related to AI. So how much is enough before you
 should be taken seriously? I'm also not sure that Goertzel is
 expert in Popperian *epistemology*.

 Later he goes on to write, I have conjectured before that once
 some proto-AGI reaches a sufficient level of sophistication in its
 behavior, we will see an “AGI Sputnik” dynamic — where various
 countries and corporations compete to put more and more money and
 attention into AGI, trying to get there first. The question is,
 just how good does a proto-AGI have to be to reach the AGI Sputnik
 level?I'm not sure what proto-AGO means? It perhaps misses the
 central point that intelligence is a qualitative, not quantitative
 thing. Sputnik was a less advanced version of the International
 Space Station (ISS)...or a GPS satellite.

 But there is no less advanced version of being a universal
 explainer (i.e a person, i.e: intelligent, i.e: AGI) is there? So
 the analogy is quite false. As a side point is the A in AGI
 racist? Or does the A simply mean intelligently designed as
 opposed to evolved by natural selection? I'm not sure...what  
will

 Artificial mean to AGI when they are here? I suppose we might
 augment our senses in all sorts of ways so the distinction might  
be
 blurred anyways as it is currently with race.So I think the  
Sputnik

 analogy is wrong.

 A better analogy would be...say you wanted to develop a *worldwide
 communications system* in the time of (say) the American Indians  
in

 the USA (say around 1200 AD for argument's sake). Somehow you knew
 *it must be possible* to create a communications system that
 allowed transmission of messages across the world at very very  
high

 speeds but so far your technology was limited to ever bigger fires
 and more and more smoke. Then the difference between (say) a smoke
 signal and a real communications satellite that can transmit a
 message around the world (like Sputnik) would be more appropriate.
 Then the smoke signal is the current state of AGI...and Sputnik is
 real AGI - what you get once you understand something brand new
 about orbits, gravity and radio waves...and probably most
 importantly - that the world was a giant *sphere* plagued by high
 altitude winds and diverse weather systems and so forth that would
 never even have entered your mind. Things you can't even conceive
 of if all you are doing in trying to devise a better world-wide
 communications system is making ever bigger fires and more and  
more

 smoke...because *surely* that approach will eventually lead to
 world-wide communications. After all - it's just a matter of  
bigger

 fires create more smoke which travels greater distance. Right?But
 even that analogy is no good really because the smoke signal and
 the satellite still have too much in common, perhaps. They are
 *both ways of communicating*. And yet, current AI and real I  
do

 *not* have in common intelligence or thinking.

 What on Earth could proto-agi be in Ben's Goertzel's world? What
 would be the criterion for recognising it as distinct from actual
 AGI?

 I get the impression Ben might have missed the point that
 intelligeatnce is just qualitatively different from non-
 intelligence because

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Oct 2012, at 20:39, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to  
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under  
the evolutionary transformations?


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in  
environments where they need a self-model.  They are not members  
of a social community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers,  
have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery  
charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they  
don't have general intelligence (yet).


Brent
--


Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to  
modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for  
some task to more efficiently solve that task...


Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the  
proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong  
direction.


Hi Bruno,

Could you elaborate a bit on the betting mechanism so that it is  
more clear how the shorting of proofs and speed-up of computations  
obtains?


The (correct) machine tries to prove its consistency (Dt,  ~Bf) and  
never succeed, so bet that she can't do that. Then she prove Dt -  
~BDt, and infer interrogatively Dt and ~BDt.
Then either she adds the axiom Dt, with the D corresponding to the  
whole new theory. In  that case she becomes inconsistent.
Or, she add Dt as a new axiom, without that Dt included, in that  
case it is not so complex to prove that she will have infinitely many  
proofs capable to be arbitrarily shortened. I might explain more after  
I sump up Church thesis and the phi_i and the W_i. That theorem admits  
a short proof. You can find one in Torkel's book on the use and misuse  
of Gödel's theorem, or you can read the original proof by Gödel in the  
book edited by Martin Davis the undecidable (now a Dover book).











On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill  
theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be  
arbitrarily speedable.


This is a measure issue, no?


No.






Of course the trick is in on almost all inputs which means all,  
except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more  
evolution than reason.


OK.



Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle.  
Implemented with the physical time (which is is based itself on  
computation + self-reference + arithmetical truth).


Bruno



So you are equating selection by fitness in a local environment  
with a halting oracle?



Somehow. Newton would probably not have noticed the falling apple and  
F=ma, if dinosaurs didn't stop some times before.  The measure  
depends on 'computation in the limit' (= computation + halting oracle)  
because the first person experience is invariant of the UD's delays.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[meekerdb]

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some 
capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? 


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a 
self-model.  They are not members of a social community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars 
Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need 
to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet).


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian
epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology.


You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to 
Popperian epistemology can evolve.


“To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe.  There 
is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, 
that of the living organisms.  World 2, the world of conscious 
experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of 
organisms.  World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, 
emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.”


“The feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular 
importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its 
turn not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea 
of a self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time 
which underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of 
today, and of tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 
object, is itself partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; 
and the full consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.”


Evgenii
--

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/three-worlds.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Alberto G. Corona]

2012/10/9 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru:
 On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

 Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian
 epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology.


 You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to
 Popperian epistemology can evolve.

 “To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe.  There is
 the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that
 of the living organisms.  World 2, the world of conscious experience,
 emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms.  World 3,
 the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary
 product from world 2.”

..and the perception of world1 is not a objective image of the
phisical realiy, but a result of particular adaptive needs,
interests and purposes. This perception of world1 is not part of world
1, but an evolutionary product, that is part of world 2. This is very
important.

That means that any perception has a purpose from the beginning, and
making an objective idea of phisical reality is not neither can be a
valid purpose, because it is ultimateley, purposeless and,
additionally it has infinite objective versions of it  (do we want
to perceive radiation? neutrinos?  atoms? only macroscopical thigs?.

Therefore, the general intelligence, that is part of World 3, has to
work with the impulses, perceptions and purposes  evolved in world 2 .
Therefore  we the humans are limited by that (and in any other
artificial case, as i would show). But this does not means that the
human mind,  have the take this limit as a absolute limit for their
reasoning. He ask itself about the nature of these limitations and
reach different reactions to this: one answer is to adopt a particular
belief that match with these limitations, negate them (nihilism). or
try to transcend them (gnosticism : my limitations are false
impositions and I have to search for my true self ) or try to know
them (realism)

That is the difference between a tool, like an ordinary Mars Rover
that send data to the eart  from a person or for that matter, an AGI
devide sent to mars with the memories of life in earth erased and with
an impulse to inform the earth by radiowaves: While the ordinary rover
will be incapable to improve its own program in a qualitative way, the
man or the AGI will first think about how to improve his task (because
it would be a pleasure for him and his main purpose). To do so he will
have to ask itself about the motives of the people that sent him. To
do so he will ask himself about the nature of his work to try to know
the intentions of the senders, So he will study the nature of the
phisical medium to better know the purposes of the senders (while
actively working in the task, because it is a pleasure form him) .
But, because he will also have impulses for self preservation and
curiosity in order to inprove self preservation. To predict the future
he will go up in the chain of causations, he will enter into
philosophical questions at some level and adopt a certain wordview
among the three above mentioned ones, beyond the strict limitations
of his task. Otherwise he would not be AGI or human.

 General inteligence by definition can not be limited if there is
enough time and resources. So the true test of AGI would be a
philosophical questioning about existence, purpose, perception. That
includes moral questions that can be asked due to the freedom of
alternatives between different purposes that the AGI has: For example,
whether if the rover would weight less or more the  self preservation
versus task realization  ( Do I go to this dangerous crater that has
this interesting ice looking rocks or I spend the time pointing my
panels to the sun? )

Note that a response to the questions:
1 What is the ultimate meaning of your activity   -It`s my pleasure
to search interesting things and to send the info to the earth.
2  What is is interesting for you?. -Interesting is what i find
interesting by my own program, which I cannot neither I want to know.
3- Don´t you realize that if you adopt this attitude then you can not
improve your task that way? - Dont waste my time. Bye

Would reveal an  worldview (the first) that is a hint of general
intelligence, despite the fact that apparently he refuses to answer
philosophical questions.


 “The feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular
 importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its turn
 not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea of a
 self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time which
 underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of today, and of
 tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 object, is itself
 partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; and the full
 consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.”

 Evgenii
 --

 

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to 
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the 
evolutionary transformations? 


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments 
where they need a self-model.  They are not members of a social 
community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited 
self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need 
to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence 
(yet).


Brent
--


Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My 
thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more 
efficiently solve that task...


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Oct 2012, at 20:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Deutsch is right.


Deutsch is not completely wrong, just unaware of the progress in  
theoretical computer science, which explains why some paths are  
necessarily long, and can help to avoid the confusion between  
consciousness, intelligence, competence, imagination, creativity.


I have already explain why, since recently I think that all UMs are  
already conscious, including the computer you are looking at right  
now. But that consciousness is still disconnected, or only trivially  
connected, to you and the environment.


Since always I think PA, ZF, and all Löbian machines are as conscious  
as you and me. But still not connected, except on mathematical notion.  
I have explained and justified that proving in formal theory, or in a  
way that we think we could formalize if we and the times, is a way to  
actually talk to such machine, and the 8 hypostases are why any such  
little machine can already told us. They are sort of reincarnation of  
plotinus, to put it in that way.


It is easy to confuse them with zombie, as the actual dialog has to be  
made by hand, with transpiration. But such machine are already as  
conscious as all Löbian entities, from the octopus to us.


Consciousness and intelligence are both not definable, and have  
complex positive and negative feedback on competence.


General intelligence of machine needs *us* opening our mind.

The singularity is in the past. Now we can only make UMs as deluded as  
us, for the best, or the worth. They have already a well defined self,  
a repesentation of the self, some connection with truth (where the  
experience will come from), but here the organic entities and billions  
years of advantage. But they evolves also, and far quicker that the  
organic.


No progress in AI? I see explosive progress. Especially in the 1930  
for the main thing: the discovery of the Universal Machine (UM).





Searle is right.


Searle is invalid. Old discussion.
He confuses levels of description. There is nothing to add to  
Hofstadter and Dennett critics of the argument in Mind'I.


It is the same error as confusing proving A and emulating a machine  
proving A.
ZF can prove the consistency of PA, and PA cannot. But PA can prove  
that ZF can prove the consistency of PA. The first proof provide an  
emulation of the second, but PA and ZF keeps their distinct identities  
in that process.


Bruno



Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts are driven by feeling and  
will rather than programmatic logic. It's a fundamental  
misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by  
equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without  
personal investment, there is no drive to develop right hemisphere  
awareness - to look around for enemies and friends, to be vigilant.  
These kinds of capacities cannot be burned into ROM, they have to be  
discovered through unscripted participation. They have to be able to  
lie and have a reason to do so.


I'm not sure about Deutsch's purported Popper fetish, but if that's  
true, I can see why that would be the case. My hunch is that  
although Ben Goertzel is being fair to Deutsch, he may be distorting  
Deutsch's position somewhat as far as I question that he is  
suggesting that we invest in developing Philosophy instead of  
technology. Maybe he is, but it seems like an exaggeration. It seems  
to me that Deutsch is advocating the very reasonable position that  
we evaluate our progress with AGI before doubling down on the same  
strategy for the next 60 years. Nobody whats to cut off AGI funding  
- certainly not me, I just think that the approach has become  
unscientific and sentimental like alchemists with their dream of  
turning lead into gold. Start playing with biology and maybe you'll  
have something. It will be a little messier though, since with  
biology and unlike with silicon computers, when you start getting  
close to something with human like intelligence, people tend to  
object when you leave twitching half-persons moaning around the  
laboratory. You will know you have real AGI because there will be a  
lot of people screaming.


Craig


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-iG7-y2ddXsJ 
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this 

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Oct 2012, at 23:39, Russell Standish wrote:


On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:

The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI
October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel




Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own
detailed response to David Deutsch's op ed, but Ben Goertzel has done
such a good job, I now don't have to!

My response, similar to Ben's is that David does not convincingly
explain why Popperian epistemology is the secret sauce. In fact, it
is not even at all obvious how to practically apply Popperian
epistemology to the task at hand. Until some more detailed practical
proposal is put forward, the best I can say is, meh, I'll believe it
when it happens.


Strictly speaking, John Case has refuted Popperian epistemology(*), in  
the sense that he showed that some Non Popperian machine can recognize  
larger classes and more classes of phenomena than Popperian machine.  
Believing in some non refutable theories can give an advantage with  
respect of some classes of phenomena.







The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is  
one of

the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.


Not sure it is more creative than the UMs, the UD, the Mandelbrot set,  
or arithmetic.






Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
open-ended creative.


I agree. That's probably why people take time to understand that UMs  
and arithmetic are already creative.




Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
role, will come much further down the track.


Yes. With is good uses, and its misuses. Popper just made precise what  
science is, except for its criteria of interesting and good theory. In  
fact Popper theory was a real interesting theory, in the sense of  
Popper, as it was refutable. But then people should not be so much  
astonished that it has been refuted (of course in a theoretical  
context(*)). I can accept that Popper analysis has a wide spectrum  
where it works well, but in the foundations, it cannot be used a dogma.


Bruno

(*) CASE J.  NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive  
inference by Popperian
machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New- 
York, Buffalo.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Oct 2012, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to  
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under  
the evolutionary transformations?


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in  
environments where they need a self-model.  They are not members of  
a social community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have  
limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that  
they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general  
intelligence (yet).


Unlike PA and ZF and Lôbian entity which have already the maximal  
possible noyion of self (both in the 3p and 1p sense).


But PA and ZF have no amount at all of reasonable local incarnation  
(reasonable with respect of doing things on Earth, or on Mars).
Mars Rovers is far beyond PA and ZF in that matter, I mean of being  
connected to some real mundane life.


Bruno





Brent

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Alberto G. Corona]

I thin that natural selection is tautological  (is selected what has
fitness, fitness is what is selected)   but at the same time is not
empty  and it is scientifc because it can be falsified. At the same
time, if it is agreed that is the direct mechanism that design the
minds then this is the perfect condition for a foundation of
eplistemology, and  an absolute meaning of truth.

2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

 On 08 Oct 2012, at 23:39, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
 A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI
 October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel



 Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own
 detailed response to David Deutsch's op ed, but Ben Goertzel has done
 such a good job, I now don't have to!

 My response, similar to Ben's is that David does not convincingly
 explain why Popperian epistemology is the secret sauce. In fact, it
 is not even at all obvious how to practically apply Popperian
 epistemology to the task at hand. Until some more detailed practical
 proposal is put forward, the best I can say is, meh, I'll believe it
 when it happens.


 Strictly speaking, John Case has refuted Popperian epistemology(*), in the
 sense that he showed that some Non Popperian machine can recognize larger
 classes and more classes of phenomena than Popperian machine. Believing in
 some non refutable theories can give an advantage with respect of some
 classes of phenomena.






 The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
 that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
 the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
 process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.


 Not sure it is more creative than the UMs, the UD, the Mandelbrot set, or
 arithmetic.





 Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
 problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
 be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
 likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
 information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
 topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
 open-ended creative.


 I agree. That's probably why people take time to understand that UMs and
 arithmetic are already creative.



 Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
 role, will come much further down the track.


 Yes. With is good uses, and its misuses. Popper just made precise what
 science is, except for its criteria of interesting and good theory. In fact
 Popper theory was a real interesting theory, in the sense of Popper, as it
 was refutable. But then people should not be so much astonished that it has
 been refuted (of course in a theoretical context(*)). I can accept that
 Popper analysis has a wide spectrum where it works well, but in the
 foundations, it cannot be used a dogma.

 Bruno

 (*) CASE J.  NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by
 Popperian
 machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New-York,
 Buffalo.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[meekerdb]

On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and 
some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? 


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a 
self-model.  They are not members of a social community.  Some simpler systems, like 
Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that 
they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet).


Brent
--


Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that 
if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task...


I don't see why not.  A genetic-algorithm might be a subprogram that seeks an efficient 
code for some function within some larger program.  Of course it would need some 
definition or measure of what counts as 'efficient'.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to  
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under  
the evolutionary transformations?


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in  
environments where they need a self-model.  They are not members of  
a social community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have  
limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that  
they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general  
intelligence (yet).


Brent
--


Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling?  
My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to  
more efficiently solve that task...


Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the  
proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong direction.


On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill  
theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be  
arbitrarily speedable.


Of course the rtick is in on almost all inputs which means all,  
except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more evolution  
than reason.


Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle. Implemented  
with the physical time (which is is based itself on computation + self- 
reference + arithmetical truth).


Bruno




--
Onward!

Stephen

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/9/2012 12:01 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to 
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under 
the evolutionary transformations? 


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in 
environments where they need a self-model.  They are not members of 
a social community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have 
limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that 
they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general 
intelligence (yet).


Brent
--


Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? 
My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to 
more efficiently solve that task...


I don't see why not.  A genetic-algorithm might be a subprogram that 
seeks an efficient code for some function within some larger program.  
Of course it would need some definition or measure of what counts as 
'efficient'.


Brent
--


How about capable of finding the required solution given a finite 
quantity of resources.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to 
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under 
the evolutionary transformations? 


It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in 
environments where they need a self-model.  They are not members of 
a social community.  Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have 
limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that 
they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general 
intelligence (yet).


Brent
--


Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? 
My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to 
more efficiently solve that task...


Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the 
proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong direction.


Hi Bruno,

Could you elaborate a bit on the betting mechanism so that it is 
more clear how the shorting of proofs and speed-up of computations obtains?





On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill 
theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be 
arbitrarily speedable.


This is a measure issue, no?



Of course the trick is in on almost all inputs which means all, 
except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more evolution 
than reason.


OK.



Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle. Implemented 
with the physical time (which is is based itself on computation + 
self-reference + arithmetical truth).


Bruno



So you are equating selection by fitness in a local environment 
with a halting oracle?


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Russell Standish]

Maybe I will take you up on this - I think my uni library card expired
years ago, and its a PITA to renew.

However, since one doesn't need a mind to be creative (and my interest
is actually in mindless creative processes), I'm not sure exactly how
relevant something titled Mechanism of Mind it will be.

BTW - very close to sending you a finished draft of Amoeba's Secret. I
just have to check the translations I wasn't sure of now that I have
access to a dictionary/Google translate, and also redo the citations
in a more regular manner.

Cheers

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
 Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some 
 genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell if 
 you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured object, 
 not least because of the fact that the author autographed it!
 
 
 
 
 On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
 
  The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
  that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
  the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
  process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.
  
  Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
  problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
  be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
  likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
  information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
  topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
  open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
  role, will come much further down the track. 
  
  Cheers
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Kim Jones]

It just may provide you that flash of insight you hanker for; that's my grand 
hope, anyway.

here's a snippet:

There may be no reason to say something until after it has been said. Once it 
has been said a context develops to support it, and yet it would never have 
been produced by a context. It may not be possible to plan a new style in art, 
but once it comes about, it creates its own validity. It is usual to proceed 
forward step by step until one has got somewhere. But - it is also possible to 
get there first by any means and then look back and find the best route. A 
problem may be worked forward from the beginning but it may also be worked 
backward from the end.

Instead of proceeding steadily along a pathway, one jumps tpo a different 
point, or several different points in turn, and then waits for them to link 
together to form a coherent pattern. It is in the nature of the self-maximising 
system of the memory-surface that is mind to create a coherent pattern out of 
such separate points. If the pattern is effective then it cannot possibly 
matter whether it came about in a sequential fashion or not. A frame of 
reference is a context provided by the current arrangement of information. It 
is the direction of development implied by this arrangement. One cannot break 
out of this frame of reference by working from within it. It maybe necessary to 
jump out, and if the jump is successful then the frame of reference is itself 
altered. (p. 240 - description of the process known as Lateral Thinking.)

Give me a bell in about a week and we will jump in somewhere for a beer and I 
will pass you this volume (if still interested after reading the above) - I 
will have a little less Uni work to do for a short while; I may be able to get 
down to a bit of finessing of our translation of Bruno's Amoebas.

Kim Jones



On 10/10/2012, at 8:16 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

 Maybe I will take you up on this - I think my uni library card expired
 years ago, and its a PITA to renew.
 
 However, since one doesn't need a mind to be creative (and my interest
 is actually in mindless creative processes), I'm not sure exactly how
 relevant something titled Mechanism of Mind it will be.
 
 BTW - very close to sending you a finished draft of Amoeba's Secret. I
 just have to check the translations I wasn't sure of now that I have
 access to a dictionary/Google translate, and also redo the citations
 in a more regular manner.
 
 Cheers
 
 On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
 Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some 
 genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell 
 if you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured 
 object, not least because of the fact that the author autographed it!
 
 
 
 
 On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
 
 The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
 that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
 the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
 process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.
 
 Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
 problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
 be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
 likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
 information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
 topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
 open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
 role, will come much further down the track. 
 
 Cheers
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 
 
 -- 
 
 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email

The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Richard Ruquist]

The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI
October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel


(Credit: iStockphoto)

As we noted in a recent post, physicist David Deutsch said the field
of “artificial general intelligence” or AGI has made “no progress
whatever during the entire six decades of its existence.” We asked Dr.
Ben Goertzel, who introduced the term AGI and founded the AGI
conference series, to respond. — Ed.

Like so many others, I’ve been extremely impressed and fascinated by
physicist David Deutsch’s work on quantum computation — a field that
he helped found and shape.

I also encountered Deutsch’s thinking once in a totally different
context — while researching approaches to home schooling my children,
I noticed his major role in the Taking Children Seriously movement,
which advocates radical unschooling, and generally rates all coercion
used against children as immoral.

In short, I have frequently admired Deutsch as a creative, gutsy,
rational and intriguing thinker. So when I saw he had written an
article entitled “Creative blocks: The very laws of physics imply that
artificial intelligence must be possible. What’s holding us up?,” I
was eager to read it and get his thoughts on my own main area of
specialty, artificial general intelligence.

Oops.

I was curious what Deutsch would have to say about AGI and quantum
computing. But he quickly dismisses Penrose and others who think human
intelligence relies on neural quantum computing, quantum gravity
computing, and what-not. Instead, his article begins with a long,
detailed review of the well-known early history of computing, and then
argues that the “long record of failure” of the AI field AGI-wise can
only be remedied via a breakthrough in epistemology following on from
the work of Karl Popper.

This bold, eccentric view of AGI is clearly presented in the article,
but is not really argued for. This is understandable since we’re
talking about a journalistic opinion piece here rather than a journal
article or a monograph. But it makes it difficult to respond to
Deutsch’s opinions other than by saying “Well, er, no” and then
pointing out the stronger arguments that exist in favor of alternative
perspectives more commonly held within the AGI research community.

I salute David Deutsch’s boldness, in writing and thinking about a
field where he obviously doesn’t have much practical grounding.
Sometimes the views of outsiders with very different backgrounds can
yield surprising insights. But I don’t think this is one of those
times. In fact, I think Deutsch’s perspective on AGI is badly
mistaken, and if widely adopted, would slow down progress toward AGI
dramatically.

The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet, I believe, have nothing to do
with Popperian philosophy, and everything to do with:

The weakness of current computer hardware (rapidly being remedied via
exponential technological growth!)
The relatively minimal funding allocated to AGI research (which, I
agree with Deutsch, should be distinguished from “narrow AI” research
on highly purpose-specific AI systems like IBM’s Jeopardy!-playing AI
or Google’s self-driving cars).
The integration bottleneck: the difficulty of integrating multiple
complex components together to make a complex dynamical software
system, in cases where the behavior of the integrated system depends
sensitively on every one of the components.
Assorted nitpicks, quibbles and major criticisms

I’ll begin here by pointing out some of the odd and/or erroneous
positions that Deutsch maintains in his article. After that, I’ll
briefly summarize my own alternative perspective on why we don’t have
human-level AGI yet, as alluded to in the above three bullet points.

Deutsch begins by bemoaning the AI field’s “long record of failure” at
creating AGI — without seriously considering the common
counterargument that this record of failure isn’t very surprising,
given the weakness of current computers relative to the human brain,
and the far greater weakness of the computers available to earlier AI
researchers.  I actually agree with his statement that the AI field
has generally misunderstood the nature of general intelligence. But I
don’t think the rate of progress in the AI field, so far, is a very
good argument in favor of this statement. There are too many other
factors underlying this rate of progress, such as the nature of the
available hardware.

He also makes a rather strange statement regarding the recent
emergence of the AGI movement:

The field used to be called “AI” — artificial intelligence. But “AI”
was gradually appropriated to describe all sorts of unrelated computer
programs such as game players, search engines and chatbots, until the
G for ‘general’ was added to make it possible to refer to the real
thing again, but now with the implication that an AGI is just a
smarter species of chatbot.

As the one who introduced the term AGI and founded the AGI conference
series, I am perplexed

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[John Clark]

How David Deutsch can watch a computer beat the 2 best human Jeopardy!
players on planet Earth and then say that AI has made “no progress whatever
during the entire six decades of its existence” is a complete mystery to me.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/8/2012 1:13 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
except from

/The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet/
A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI
October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel


So in this view, the main missing ingredient in AGI so far is
“cognitive synergy”: the fitting-together of different intelligent
components into an appropriate cognitive architecture, in such a way
that the components richly and dynamically support and assist each
other, interrelating very closely in a similar manner to the
components of the brain or body and thus giving rise to appropriate
emergent structures and dynamics.

The reason this sort of intimate integration has not yet been explored
much is that it’s difficult on multiple levels, requiring the design
of an architecture and its component algorithms with a view toward the
structures and dynamics that will arise in the system once it is
coupled with an appropriate environment. Typically, the AI algorithms
and structures corresponding to different cognitive functions have
been developed based on divergent theoretical principles, by disparate
communities of researchers, and have been tuned for effective
performance on different tasks in different environments.

Making such diverse components work together in a truly synergetic and
cooperative way is a tall order, yet my own suspicion is that this —
rather than some particular algorithm, structure or architectural
principle — is the “secret sauce” needed to create human-level AGI
based on technologies available today.

Achieving this sort of cognitive-synergetic integration of AGI
components is the focus of the OpenCog AGI project that I co-founded
several years ago. We’re a long way from human adult level AGI yet,
but we have a detailed design and codebase and roadmap for getting
there. Wish us luck!

Hi Richard,

My suspicion is that what is needed here, if we can put on our 
programmer hats, is the programer's version of a BEC, Bose-Einstein 
Condensate, where every part is an integrated reflection of the whole. 
My own idea is that some form of algebraic and/or topological closure is 
required to achieve this as inspired by the Brouwer Fixed point theorem 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Alberto G. Corona]

Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology,
which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. How evolution makes a
portion of matter ascertain what is truth in virtue of what and for
what purpose. The idea of intelligence need a knowledge of what is
truth but also a motive for acting and therefore using this
intelligence. if there is no purpose there is no acting, if no act, no
selection of intelligent behaviours if no evolution, no intelligence.
Not only intelligence is made for acting accoding with  arbitrary
purpose: It has evolved from the selection of resulting behaviours for
precise purposes.

an ordinary purpose is non separable from other purposes that are
coordinated for a particular superior purpose, but the chain of
reasoning and actng means tthat a designed intelligent robot also need
an ultimate purpose. otherwise it would be a sequencer and achiever of
disconnected goals at a certain level where the goals would never have
coordination, that is it would be not intelligent.

 This is somewhat different ffom humans, because much of our goals are
hardcoded and non accessible to introspection, although we can use
evolutionary reasoning for obtaining falsable hypothesis about
apparently irrational behaviour, like love, anger aestetics, pleasure
and so on. However men are from time to time asking themselves for the
deep meaning of what he does. specially when a whole chain of goals
have failed, so he is a in a bottleneck. Because this is the right
thing to do for intelligent beings. A true intelligent being therefore
has existential, moral and belief problems. If an artificial
intelligent being has these problems, the designed as solved the
problem of AGI to the most deeper level.

An AGI designed has no such core engine of impulses and perceptions
that drive, in the first place, intelligence to action: curiosity,
fame and respect, power, social navigation instimcts.  It has to start
from scratch.   Concerning perceptions, a man has hardwired
perceptions that create  meaning:  There is part of brain circuitry at
various levels that make it feel that a person in front of him is
another person. But really it is its evolved circuitry what makes the
impression that that is a person and that this is true, instead of a
bunch of moving atoms. Popperian Evoluitionary epistemology build from
this. All of this link computer science with philosophy at the deeper
level.

Another comment concerning design: The evolutionary designs are
different from rational designs. The modularity in rartional design
arises from the fact that reason can not reason with many variables at
the same time. Reason uses divide an conquer.  Object oriented design,
modual architecture and so on are a consequence of that limitation.
These design are understandable by other humans, but they are not the
most effcient. In contrast, modularity in evolution is functional.
That means that if a brain structure is near other in the brain
forming a greater structuture it is for reasons of efficiency, not for
reasons of modularity.  the interfaces between modules are not
discrete, but pervasive. This makes essentially a reverse engineering
of the brain inpossible.






2012/10/8 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

 How David Deutsch can watch a computer beat the 2 best human Jeopardy! 
 players on planet Earth and then say that AI has made “no progress whatever 
 during the entire six decades of its existence” is a complete mystery to me.

   John K Clark


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




--
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Craig Weinberg]

Deutsch is right. Searle is right. Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts 
are driven by feeling and will rather than programmatic logic. It's a 
fundamental misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by 
equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without personal 
investment, there is no drive to develop right hemisphere awareness - to 
look around for enemies and friends, to be vigilant. These kinds of 
capacities cannot be burned into ROM, they have to be discovered through 
unscripted participation. They have to be able to lie and have a reason to 
do so.

I'm not sure about Deutsch's purported Popper fetish, but if that's true, I 
can see why that would be the case. My hunch is that although Ben Goertzel 
is being fair to Deutsch, he may be distorting Deutsch's position somewhat 
as far as I question that he is suggesting that we invest in developing 
Philosophy instead of technology. Maybe he is, but it seems like an 
exaggeration. It seems to me that Deutsch is advocating the very reasonable 
position that we evaluate our progress with AGI before doubling down on the 
same strategy for the next 60 years. Nobody whats to cut off AGI funding - 
certainly not me, I just think that the approach has become unscientific 
and sentimental like alchemists with their dream of turning lead into gold. 
Start playing with biology and maybe you'll have something. It will be a 
little messier though, since with biology and unlike with silicon 
computers, when you start getting close to something with human like 
intelligence, people tend to object when you leave twitching half-persons 
moaning around the laboratory. You will know you have real AGI because 
there will be a lot of people screaming.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-iG7-y2ddXsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[meekerdb]

On 10/8/2012 11:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology,
which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. How evolution makes a
portion of matter ascertain what is truth in virtue of what and for
what purpose. The idea of intelligence need a knowledge of what is
truth but also a motive for acting and therefore using this
intelligence. if there is no purpose there is no acting, if no act, no
selection of intelligent behaviours if no evolution, no intelligence.
Not only intelligence is made for acting accoding with  arbitrary
purpose: It has evolved from the selection of resulting behaviours for
precise purposes.

an ordinary purpose is non separable from other purposes that are
coordinated for a particular superior purpose, but the chain of
reasoning and actng means tthat a designed intelligent robot also need
an ultimate purpose. otherwise it would be a sequencer and achiever of
disconnected goals at a certain level where the goals would never have
coordination, that is it would be not intelligent.


I agree that intelligence cannot be separated from purpose. I think that's why projects 
aimed at creating AGI flounder - a general purpose tends to be no purpose at all.  But 
I'm not so sure about an ultimate goal, at least not in the sense of a single goal.  I can 
imagine an intelligent robot who has several high-level goals that are to be satisfied by 
not necessarily summed or otherwise combined into a single goal.




  This is somewhat different ffom humans, because much of our goals are
hardcoded and non accessible to introspection, although we can use
evolutionary reasoning for obtaining falsable hypothesis about
apparently irrational behaviour, like love, anger aestetics, pleasure
and so on.


There's no reason to give a Mars Rover introspective knowledge of its hardcoded goals.  A 
robot would only need introspective knowledge of goals if there were the possibility of 
changing them - i.e. not hardcoded.



However men are from time to time asking themselves for the
deep meaning of what he does. specially when a whole chain of goals
have failed, so he is a in a bottleneck. Because this is the right
thing to do for intelligent beings. A true intelligent being therefore
has existential, moral and belief problems. If an artificial
intelligent being has these problems, the designed as solved the
problem of AGI to the most deeper level.


I think it's a matter of depth. A human is generally more complex and has hierarchy of 
goals. A dead end in trying to satisfy some goal occasions reflection on how that goal 
relates to some higher goal; how to back track.  So a Mars Rover may find itself in a box 
canyon so that it has to back track and this makes its journey to the objective too far to 
reach before winter and so it has to select a secondary objective point to reach.  But it 
can't reflect on whether gathering data an transmitting it is good or not.




An AGI designed has no such core engine of impulses and perceptions
that drive, in the first place, intelligence to action: curiosity,
fame and respect, power, social navigation instimcts.  It has to start
from scratch.   Concerning perceptions, a man has hardwired
perceptions that create  meaning:  There is part of brain circuitry at
various levels that make it feel that a person in front of him is
another person. But really it is its evolved circuitry what makes the
impression that that is a person and that this is true, instead of a
bunch of moving atoms. Popperian Evoluitionary epistemology build from
this. All of this link computer science with philosophy at the deeper
level.


And because man evolved as a social animal he is hard wired to want to exchange knowledge 
with other humans.




Another comment concerning design: The evolutionary designs are
different from rational designs. The modularity in rartional design
arises from the fact that reason can not reason with many variables at
the same time. Reason uses divide an conquer.  Object oriented design,
modual architecture and so on are a consequence of that limitation.
These design are understandable by other humans, but they are not the
most effcient. In contrast, modularity in evolution is functional.
That means that if a brain structure is near other in the brain
forming a greater structuture it is for reasons of efficiency,


Are saying spatial modularity implies functional modularity?


not for
reasons of modularity.


No it may be for reasons of adaptability.  Evolution has no way to reason about efficiency 
or even a measure of efficiency.  It can only try random variations and copy ones that work.



the interfaces between modules are not
discrete, but pervasive. This makes essentially a reverse engineering
of the brain inpossible.


And not even desirable.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to 

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
 The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
 A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI
 October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel
 
 

Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own
detailed response to David Deutsch's op ed, but Ben Goertzel has done
such a good job, I now don't have to!

My response, similar to Ben's is that David does not convincingly
explain why Popperian epistemology is the secret sauce. In fact, it
is not even at all obvious how to practically apply Popperian
epistemology to the task at hand. Until some more detailed practical
proposal is put forward, the best I can say is, meh, I'll believe it
when it happens.

The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.

Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
role, will come much further down the track. 

Cheers
-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/8/2012 5:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:

The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI
October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel



Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own
detailed response to David Deutsch's op ed, but Ben Goertzel has done
such a good job, I now don't have to!

My response, similar to Ben's is that David does not convincingly
explain why Popperian epistemology is the secret sauce. In fact, it
is not even at all obvious how to practically apply Popperian
epistemology to the task at hand. Until some more detailed practical
proposal is put forward, the best I can say is, meh, I'll believe it
when it happens.

The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.

Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
role, will come much further down the track.

Cheers

Hi Russell,

Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to 
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the 
evolutionary transformations?



--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:49:12PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
 Hi Russell,
 
 Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to
 self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the
 evolutionary transformations?
 
 

Its not my field - general evolutionary processes are not self-aware,
or self- anything, in general. But Hod Lipson has developed some (rather crude
IMHO) self-aware robots (in the shape of a starfish, for some strange reason).

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/8/2012 7:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:49:12PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Russell,

 Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to
self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the
evolutionary transformations?



Its not my field - general evolutionary processes are not self-aware,
or self- anything, in general. But Hod Lipson has developed some (rather crude
IMHO) self-aware robots (in the shape of a starfish, for some strange reason).

Cheers



But would that not make an AGI just a glorified calculator? I am 
very interested in Lipson's work! I cannot find his latest research...


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

[Kim Jones]

Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some 
genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell if 
you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured object, not 
least because of the fact that the author autographed it!




On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

 The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is
 that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of
 the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative
 process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all.
 
 Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main
 problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may
 be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more
 likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as
 information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical
 topics before we even understand what it means for something to be
 open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a
 role, will come much further down the track. 
 
 Cheers

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A Purely Arithmetical, yet...

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Aug 2009, at 05:52, Brent Meeker wrote:


 Bruno, I would like to understand your arguments at a technical level,
 so I started reading your March 2007 paper.


Hmm The argument is really UDA. But after UDA, people may be  
convinced that comp is just refuted or makes no sense at all, or that  
it leads to intractable mathematics. AUDA (the main subject of the  
Plotinus paper) is just an abstract translation of UDA in the language  
of a Peano Arithmetic theorem prover (a Löbian machine), and it makes  
the extraction of physics (among other things) more precise. But it  
assumes some acceptation of the knowledge theory of Theaetetus,  
which can easily be justified in comp from the dream argument, and  
it makes sense for the Loebian machines thanks to incompleteness.

It is really UDA which shows that comp = the reversal. AUDA is part  
of the math which follows, and is not necessary for the understanding  
that comp forces the reversal, but it gives the math for doing the  
reversal in practice, and evaluating the technical difficulty, which  
is of course gigantic.

But it is a pleasure for me to answer any question on AUDA. I would  
just suggest to those who have not yet grasp the seven step of UDA, to  
take it easy here. AUDA is really far more mathematically involved  
than UDA. UDA needs just the notion of universal machine. AUDA needs  
the notion of Löbian machine which can be grasped when you understand  
how quick a universal machine can understand that she is universal.  
You may take a look on the second part of the sane04 paper too.



 But I got kinda bogged
 down near the end of Section 2.  Could you expand on the paragraph
 that begins with Let us define an arithmetical realisation R by a
 function which assigns to each propositional letter p,q,r... an
 arithmetical sentence.  I understand the general idea which is to
 create a mapping between propositions and arithmetical sentences
 R:p-i where i is some arithmetical statement.  But where do the
 propositions come from?

We take them all. An arithmetical propositions are finite strings made  
from the alphabet {E, A, , V, ~, (, ), 0, s, +, *} + the variables x,  
y, z, ... verifying a decidable grammar.
For example prime numbers exists = ExAy((y divides x) - (y = s(0)  
or y = x)) = ExAy(Ez(y = x*z)- (y = s(0) or y = x))
You can put them in lexicographic order. Then you can put the sentence  
letters of the modal propositional system in some order to: p1, p2,  
p3, ...
So you can consider some realization R as being a computable (or not)  
bijection between ALL propositional letters and ALL arithmetical  
propositions (the true, the false, etc.).



 Are they the axioms appearing just above plus
 the theorems that follow from them?

No, it is just a way to interpret a letter (like p, q, or p1, p2,  
p3, ) by an arbitrary arithmetical proposition.
A letter like p can be assign to a proposition like 0 = s(0).  
(the false and non provable proposition 0 = 1).



 Are there no further conditions on R?

No further condition. R links languages only , (first order arithmetic  
and modal logic), not theories. This happens later.



 You say that G proves A iff PA proves i(A).  But doesn't that depend
 on what map R is chosen?


No. Exactly like a tautology does not depend on the proposition (for  
example (p  q) - p is true whatever the propositions p and q  
represents). The provable provability tautologies, i.e. the theorems  
of G, have to be independent of which arithmetical propositions the  
sentence letters are representing. (The same for the true provability  
tautologies, with G*)

Take Gödel's second incompleteness theorem general form:  Dp - ~BDp,  
or ~B~p - ~B(~B~p). It says that the non provability of '~p' (Gödel  
number of ~p) entails the non provability of (the Gödel number of)  
the non provability of the Gödel number of ~p. This is a theorem of  
PA for *any* arithmetical proposition p.

Actually comp itself will be translated by a restriction of R on the  
(false or true) arithmetical sigma_1 sentences. But this is done later  
in the paper, and there too, I will take the true and false sigma_1  
sentences in the range of R.

OK?
Ask any question. Help yourself with Sane04.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

A Purely Arithmetical, yet...

[Brent Meeker]

Bruno, I would like to understand your arguments at a technical level, 
so I started reading your March 2007 paper.  But I got kinda bogged 
down near the end of Section 2.  Could you expand on the paragraph 
that begins with Let us define an arithmetical realisation R by a 
function which assigns to each propositional letter p,q,r... an 
arithmetical sentence.  I understand the general idea which is to 
create a mapping between propositions and arithmetical sentences 
R:p-i where i is some arithmetical statement.  But where do the 
propositions come from?  Are they the axioms appearing just above plus 
the theorems that follow from them?  Are there no further conditions on R?

You say that G proves A iff PA proves i(A).  But doesn't that depend 
on what map R is chosen?  Is this a condition on R?

thnx, Brent

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 04-sept.-06, à 16:12, 1Z a écrit :



 Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 04-sept.-06, à 02:56, 1Z a écrit :


 Why should a belief in other minds (which I do not directly 
 experience)
 be more reasonable thant a belief in unexperienced primary matter ?
 It's a question of consistency.

 Attributing mind to others explains many things.


 And the project of expaling things with matter has been going strong
 for
 many centuries.


But if you know the literature in philosophy of mind you know that 
the notion of matter has never been successful. It has ease the 
progress in *quantitative physics, but only by paying the price of 
hiding the fundamental mind/body question. Of course the fundamental 
questions has been appropriated by the fake-authoritative religion 
people. And as I have said often, if you look at the literature in 
physics, primary matter never play an explicit role. It just help to 
interpret formula without jeopardizing common sense.




 There are rich (albeit
 vague) theories about those other mind (treated in Psychology (cf
 jealousy, shame, fear, ...) and Theology (does other minds go to
 paradise?). Although I have no direct experience of other minds I have
 many indirect evidences.

 Yes, that;s the problem. What stands between your mind and
 other minds is your body and other bodies.


Yes. But we can believe in bodies without attributing to them primary 
matters.




 Unexperienced primary matter? I have not even indirect experiences,

 No experience of time and change ?


Sure. So what? Time and change can be explained by the third hypostase 
which appears naturally when you define the first person in terms of 
the provability logics.



 and
 with comp and/or the quantum I can not even ascribe a simple meaning 
 to
 the concept.

 Quantum mechanics is a theory *of* matter.


Yes. But it is even less a theory of primary matter than Newtonian 
physics, where we can still imagine matter is composed of real atomos 
(non splitable entities).

Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 04-sept.-06, à 02:56, 1Z a écrit :

 
  Why should a belief in other minds (which I do not directly experience)
  be more reasonable thant a belief in unexperienced primary matter ?
  It's a question of consistency.

 Attributing mind to others explains many things.


And the project of expaling things with matter has been going strong
for
many centuries.

 There are rich (albeit
 vague) theories about those other mind (treated in Psychology (cf
 jealousy, shame, fear, ...) and Theology (does other minds go to
 paradise?). Although I have no direct experience of other minds I have
 many indirect evidences.

Yes, that;s the problem. What stands between your mind and
other minds is your body and other bodies.

 Unexperienced primary matter? I have not even indirect experiences,

No experience of time and change ?

 and
 with comp and/or the quantum I can not even ascribe a simple meaning to
 the concept.

Quantum mechanics is a theory *of* matter.

  Why should I postulate something I don't understand?
 Of course I believe in the existence of fermions and bosons, of stars
 and galaxies, ... I believe also in the existence of Bridge and Chess,
 Nations and humans, etc... I see only relatively stable patterns and
 histories.
 
 Bruno
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 30-août-06, à 21:26, 1Z (Peter D. Jones) a écrit :


 How do you escape solipsism without embracing materialism ?




You can escape solipsism by embracing *any* kind of *objective* 
idealism (inspired by mathematical structures or not).

Objective idealisms are not in fashion today, I know, but fashion is 
not an argument, hope you agree ...


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 30-août-06, à 21:26, 1Z (Peter D. Jones) a écrit :


  How do you escape solipsism without embracing materialism ?




 You can escape solipsism by embracing *any* kind of *objective*
 idealism (inspired by mathematical structures or not).


Why should a belief in other minds (which I do not directly experience)
be more reasonable thant a belief in unexperienced primary matter ?
It's a question of consistency.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Peter Jones writes:

 Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain 
 properties is just a working
 assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn 
 out that if we dig into
 quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but 
 solid matter will still be
 solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
 mysterious raw physical
 substrate.
   
   
I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is as
you say
a matter of properties/behaviour.
   
I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.
  
   We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light, 
   distorts spacetime etc.
   and leave it at that.
 
  However, that is mere behaviour. I need a defiition
  which digs deeper than behaviour,and I have one.

 All I see is mere behaviour.

All you see is phenomena in your own mimd, says the solipsist..

When I say that something is as real as this desk in front of me, I am
 saying that it is as real as the mere mere behaviour in front of me

How do you know it is really in front of you ?

 - as opposed to the desk in my
 dreams, which lacks such behaviour. Do you think we really disagree about 
 desks? If it looks like a
 desk, feels like a desk etc., then it's a desk. It doesn't add anything to 
 say that it also contains
 essence of real desk to distinguish it from dream desks, because dream 
 desks differ from real
 desks in other ways.

Well, what is the difference ? How do you escape solipsism without
embracing materialism ?

 Stathis Papaioannou
 _
 Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le Wednesday 30 Août 2006 21:26, 1Z a écrit :
 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
  Peter Jones writes:
  Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain
  properties is just a working assumption to facilitate thinking
  about the real world. It may turn out that if we dig into quarks
  very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but
  solid matter will still be solid matter, because it is defined by
  its properties, not by some mysterious raw physical substrate.

 I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is
 as you say
 a matter of properties/behaviour.

 I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.
   
We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light,
distorts spacetime etc. and leave it at that.
  
   However, that is mere behaviour. I need a defiition
   which digs deeper than behaviour,and I have one.
 
  All I see is mere behaviour.

 All you see is phenomena in your own mimd, says the solipsist..

There is no other solipsist than me he would say... As the solipsist is the 
only real... but it is a disgression and as usual you answer by question or 
opinion which are not yours.

 When I say that something is as real as this desk in front of me, I am
  saying that it is as real as the mere mere behaviour in front of me

 How do you know it is really in front of you ?

This is still a language babeling... define real (for you) then we can 
discuss... But I'll try to do it for you.

What is real is what is material. Materiality define what is real... Don't 
forget to byte the snake.

  - as opposed to the desk in my
  dreams, which lacks such behaviour. Do you think we really disagree about
  desks? If it looks like a desk, feels like a desk etc., then it's a desk.
  It doesn't add anything to say that it also contains essence of real
  desk to distinguish it from dream desks, because dream desks differ from
  real desks in other ways.

 Well, what is the difference ? How do you escape solipsism without
 embracing materialism ?

How do you escape the circle without leaving materialism ?

Quentin

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
 Le Wednesday 30 Août 2006 21:26, 1Z a écrit :
  Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
   Peter Jones writes:
   Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain
   properties is just a working assumption to facilitate thinking
   about the real world. It may turn out that if we dig into quarks
   very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but
   solid matter will still be solid matter, because it is defined by
   its properties, not by some mysterious raw physical substrate.
 
  I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is
  as you say
  a matter of properties/behaviour.
 
  I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.

 We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light,
 distorts spacetime etc. and leave it at that.
   
However, that is mere behaviour. I need a defiition
which digs deeper than behaviour,and I have one.
  
   All I see is mere behaviour.
 
  All you see is phenomena in your own mimd, says the solipsist..

 There is no other solipsist than me he would say... As the solipsist is the
 only real... but it is a disgression and as usual you answer by question or
 opinion which are not yours.

I am making the point that if you apply the I don't believe in a
anything
I can't see principle *consistently*, you don't just abandon matter,
you also abandon Other Minds.

  When I say that something is as real as this desk in front of me, I am
   saying that it is as real as the mere mere behaviour in front of me
 
  How do you know it is really in front of you ?

 This is still a language babeling... define real (for you) then we can
 discuss... But I'll try to do it for you.


 What is real is what is material. Materiality define what is real... Don't
 forget to byte the snake.

What is real is what Quentin can see..what Quentin can see is real...
two can play at the snake-biting game.

   - as opposed to the desk in my
   dreams, which lacks such behaviour. Do you think we really disagree about
   desks? If it looks like a desk, feels like a desk etc., then it's a desk.
   It doesn't add anything to say that it also contains essence of real
   desk to distinguish it from dream desks, because dream desks differ from
   real desks in other ways.
 
  Well, what is the difference ? How do you escape solipsism without
  embracing materialism ?

 How do you escape the circle without leaving materialism ?


What you have is a choice of circles.

 Quentin


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Peter Jones writes:

Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties 
is just a working
assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out 
that if we dig into
quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but 
solid matter will still be
solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
mysterious raw physical
substrate.
  
  
   I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is as
   you say
   a matter of properties/behaviour.
  
   I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.
 
  We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light, 
  distorts spacetime etc.
  and leave it at that.
 
 However, that is mere behaviour. I need a defiition
 which digs deeper than behaviour,and I have one.

All I see is mere behaviour. When I say that something is as real as this desk 
in front of me, I am 
saying that it is as real as the mere mere behaviour in front of me - as 
opposed to the desk in my 
dreams, which lacks such behaviour. Do you think we really disagree about 
desks? If it looks like a 
desk, feels like a desk etc., then it's a desk. It doesn't add anything to say 
that it also contains 
essence of real desk to distinguish it from dream desks, because dream desks 
differ from real 
desks in other ways.
 
Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Peter Jones writes:

  Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
  just a working
  assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out 
  that if we dig into
  quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
  matter will still be
  solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
  mysterious raw physical
  substrate.
 
 
 I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is as
 you say
 a matter of properties/behaviour.
 
 I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.

We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light, distorts 
spacetime etc. 
and leave it at that. Having these properties is necessary and sufficient for 
what we call 
existence, and it doesn't add anything to postulate a bare substrate, any 
more than it 
adds anything to postulate an undetectable ether.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Peter Jones writes:

 By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
 solipsism.
 I choose metaphsyics.
 We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.

Solipsism is a metaphysical position. 
 
 (BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
 OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)

It's debatable, but perhaps MWI is a better and simpler explanation of 
the facts of quantum mechanics than is CI, for example. Similarly (but 
much more strongly) believing there is a world out there is a better 
explanation of the facts than solipsism. But some explanations of physical 
phenomena, such as an undetectable ether through which light propagates 
have been dropped as unnecessary. And perhaps the propertyless 
substrate is more like the ether than the many worlds, in that we can at 
least imagine travelling to other branches or detecting them in some way, 
whereas the ether and the propertyless substrate are undetectable as 
a part of their definition - i.e. if we found evidence of the propertyless 
substrate it wouldn't be a propertyless substrate any more.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
  Brent Meeker writes:
  
  
 Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
 just a working 
 assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out 
 that if we dig into 
 quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
 matter will still be 
 solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
 mysterious raw physical 
 substrate.
 
 But I don't think we ever have anything but working assumptions; so we 
 might as 
 well call our best ones real; while keeping in mind we may have to change 
 them.
  
  
  That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working 
  assumption, there is some 
  definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can 
  observe, that is a 
  metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to 
  religious faith.
  
  Stathis Papaioannou
 
 I put working assumption in scare quotes because I think the fact that we 
 can 
 create models of the world that are successful over a wide domain of 
 phenomena is 
 evidence for an underlying reality.  It's not conclusive evidence, but 
 reality is 
 more than just an assumption.
 
 Brent Meeker

There is good reason to believe that there is some sort of reality out there as 
opposed to the 
solipsistic alternative, but there is less reason to believe that there is some 
basic material substrate 
on which the various properties of physical objects are hung. The two ideas are 
not the same.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Peter Jones writes:

   Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
   just a working
   assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out 
   that if we dig into
   quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
   matter will still be
   solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
   mysterious raw physical
   substrate.
 
 
  I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is as
  you say
  a matter of properties/behaviour.
 
  I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.

 We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light, distorts 
 spacetime etc.
 and leave it at that.

However, that is mere behaviour. I need a defiition
which digs deeper than behaviour,and I have one.

  Having these properties is necessary and sufficient for what we call
 existence, and it doesn't add anything to postulate a bare substrate,

Solidity and light-reflection are not instantiated at every point in
space
time. There is contingent existence, i.e materiality.

  any more than it
 adds anything to postulate an undetectable ether.

 Stathis Papaioannou
 _
 Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Peter Jones writes:

  By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
  solipsism.
  I choose metaphsyics.
  We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.

 Solipsism is a metaphysical position.

A minimal one, that refuses to posit anything beyond
that for which there is direct evidence.

  (BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
  OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)

 It's debatable, but perhaps MWI is a better and simpler explanation of
 the facts of quantum mechanics than is CI, for example.

Presumably for reason more complex than we cannot posit the
unobservable.

 Similarly (but
 much more strongly) believing there is a world out there is a better
 explanation of the facts than solipsism. But some explanations of physical
 phenomena, such as an undetectable ether through which light propagates
 have been dropped as unnecessary. And perhaps the propertyless
 substrate is more like the ether than the many worlds, in that we can at
 least imagine travelling to other branches or detecting them in some way,
 whereas the ether and the propertyless substrate are undetectable as
 a part of their definition - i.e. if we found evidence of the propertyless
 substrate it wouldn't be a propertyless substrate any more.

Since the propertyless substrate is needed to explain time and
contingency, time and contingency are evidence for it.

 Stathis Papaioannou
 _
 Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

 There is good reason to believe that there is some sort of reality out there 
 as opposed to the
 solipsistic alternative, but there is less reason to believe that there is 
 some basic material substrate
 on which the various properties of physical objects are hung. The two ideas 
 are not the same.


Materialism has stood up for centuries.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 27-août-06, à 19:36, 1Z a écrit :



 Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 26-août-06, à 22:44, Brent Meeker a écrit :

  I understand Peters objection to regarding a mere bundle of
 properties as existent.  But I don't understand why one needs a
 propertyless
 substrate.  Why not just say that some bundles of properties are
 instantiated and
 some aren't.

 I guess Peter needs it for having a notion of (absolute) 
 instantiation.

 If you think, as I do,  that there is a difference between
 logical and physical posibility, you need to explain instantiation.


I do think indeed that there is a difference between logical and 
physical possibility.
The logico-arithmetical possibility for a machine are given by the G 
and G* logics of self-reference. G is for what the machine can tell us 
about that, and G* is for the whole truth (unexpectedly, at the 
propositional level,  this is completely captured by G*).
The physical possibilities are given by the box and diamond of the Z(*) 
and X(*) logics,
The COMP physical possibilities are given by the box and diamond of 
the Z1(*) and X1(*) logics. A case can still be given that S4Grz1 plays 
some role there too, but that would make physics closer to the David 
Lyman, George Levy conception; this is testable in principle, but for 
some reason I doubt that this could be possible).



 If you think, as I do,  that there is a difference between
 phsyical actuality and physical posibility, you need to explain
 instantiation.

The difference belongs to the person views.



 if you think, as rationalists do, that everything possible
 is also necessary and actual, you don't need those
 distinctions.


It is grosso modo, the motto of the everything list!
Of course the comp hyp put restriction on what we can take as possible, 
and it is mainly given by the true or consistent or both 
restriction. This leads naturally to the hypostases.




 If Peter takes the relative notion of instantiation, which is number
 theoretical in nature, then he would loose any motivation for his bare
 matter.

 I don't think something can exist in relation to what does not exist.


Nor do I.



 if that is what you mean.


I guess you are doing the confusion I describe in my preceding post.



  Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material
 substrate which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...


 I doubt this. Yes current *interpretations* of physical theories do
 suppose a material substrate, but only for having peaceful sleep (like
 the collapse non-answer in QM).

 All theories assume contingency.


? (very vague, I can agree, disagree ...)



 Anyway, the theories does not
 presuppose it. They presuppose only mathematical structure and
 quantitative functor between those mathematical structure and numbers
 that we can measure in some communicable ways.

 No physical theory needs to presuppose numbers as
 having an existence of their own. Formalists
 can do physics.


But they cannot interpret their theory. Now, you can be formalist with 
respect to the lobian interview, but then you should try to understand 
formally the theory (at least).
But frankly I have no clues about how a formalist can apply any theory 
without accepting some interpretation of the formula in the theory.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 27-août-06, à 19:41, 1Z a écrit :


 But you don't really address the existence question. You just loosely
 assume it is the
 same thing as truth.


I just assume that the existence of a number is equivalent with the 
intended truth of an existential
proposition written in a theory about numbers.

I identify propositions like there exist a perfect number with it is 
true that there exist a perfect number.

I am dialoguing with PA (Peano Arithmetic theorem prover). When PA 
tells me there exist perfect numbers, I take it as an existential 
proposition. It is a way, for PA, to make an ontological commitment, 
which I do too.

Of course, I don't interpret this as there exist a physical world, and 
numbers exist there physically.
I don't assume there is a physical world, and I doubt very much there 
is a physical primary world. Indeed the UDA shows such an assumption to 
be useless concerning the possible explanations of both quanta and 
qualia.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 27-août-06, à 21:41, Brent Meeker a écrit :

 I put working assumption in scare quotes because I think the fact 
 that we can
 create models of the world that are successful over a wide domain of 
 phenomena is
 evidence for an underlying reality.  It's not conclusive evidence, but 
 reality is
 more than just an assumption.


I agree that reality is more than an assumption.

I agree even that physical reality is more than an assumption. I have 
few doubt about the existence of a physical reality.

Now to assume the existence of a primary physical reality, or to 
believe that physics is obviously or necessarily the fundamental 
science, well that is a big assumption, and I would say that such an 
assumption is even unclear in front of QM, and then useless in front of 
comp.
I realize that even Aristotle, in his metaphysics, is much more prudent 
on this, than the standard Christian (especially catholic) 
interpretation of Aristotle.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Brent Meeker]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Peter Jones writes:
 
 
By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
solipsism.
I choose metaphsyics.
We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.
 
 
 Solipsism is a metaphysical position. 
  
 
(BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)
 
 
 It's debatable, but perhaps MWI is a better and simpler explanation of 
 the facts of quantum mechanics than is CI, for example. 

Multiple-worlds are a consequence of dropping the collapse of the wave 
function, 
which was inexplicable and ad hoc.  I'm not fond of it either, but it does have 
the 
support of being based on an good empirical model.  Similarly for 
multiple-universes; 
they are implied by our best theory.

Similarly (but 
 much more strongly) believing there is a world out there is a better 
 explanation of the facts than solipsism. But some explanations of physical 
 phenomena, such as an undetectable ether through which light propagates 
 have been dropped as unnecessary. 

The lumineferous aether was not only undetectable, it had to have contrdictory 
properties to remain undetected in both Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Brent Meeker wrote:
 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
  Peter Jones writes:
 
 
 By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
 solipsism.
 I choose metaphsyics.
 We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.
 
 
  Solipsism is a metaphysical position.
 
 
 (BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
 OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)
 
 
  It's debatable, but perhaps MWI is a better and simpler explanation of
  the facts of quantum mechanics than is CI, for example.

 Multiple-worlds are a consequence of dropping the collapse of the wave 
 function,
 which was inexplicable and ad hoc.

It's neither. If anything there is an embarassment of explanations for
it,
and number of motivations for positing it.

A genuine problem with MWI: it starts with the assumption that the
universe is in a 'pure' state. However, unitary evolution under the SWE
is unable to fully transform a pure state into a genuine mixture. It
can generate (by mechanisms similar to environmental decoherence) an
approximate mixture -- For All Practical Purposes. Since collapse does,
by stipulation, produce orthogonal states, there is a difference
between collapse interpretations and MW. The residual interferences
could be detectable. (It is also believed by many that collapse itself
is detectable).

In fact it turns out that in the general case , there will be a unique
pair of orthogonal perception states accompanying a pair of orthogonal
cat states. This is something known as the Schmidt decomposition of an
entangled state. However this is not much use for resolving the
measurement paradox (...) because gernerally this mathematically
preferred pair of cat states (..) would not be the desired |live cat +
| dead cat at all, but some linear superposition of these! [...] Since
the mathematics alone will not single out the |live cat and |dead cat
states as being in any way 'preferred' we still need a theory of
perception before we can make sense of [MWI] and such a theory is
lacking.Moreover the onus on such a theory would be not only to explain
why superpositions of dead and alive cats (or anything else
macroscopic) occur in do not occur in the physical world but also why
the wonderous and extraordinarily precise squared-modulus rule actually
gives the right answers for probabilities in quantum mechanics!

R. Penrose, Road to Reality p809


Is MWI a complete solution to the paradoxes of QM? Is an Universal Wave
Function feasible ?
A genuine problem with MWI: Reasonableness of all-embracing unitary
evolution. MWI-ers claim that the unitary evolution of the SWE (or some
variation) is the single all-embracing law of the universe -- the other
main part of the QM universe, the process of collapse (AKA reduction)
is not needed. However, QM itself is not an all-encompassing physical
theory because it does not include gravity and relativity. It might be
possible to include gravity in an extended WE, but the conventional SWE
requires a derivative against time, wich is difficult to achieve in a
way that is compatible with the requirements of relativity. There is
also a more conceptual argument against large-scale branching; since
all branches co-exist in the same space-time, and since the disposition
of matter determines how space bends in general relativity, large-scale
differences between the branches would leave space not knowing which
way to bend.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Brent Meeker]

1Z wrote:
 
 Brent Meeker wrote:
 
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Peter Jones writes:



By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
solipsism.
I choose metaphsyics.
We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.


Solipsism is a metaphysical position.



(BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)


It's debatable, but perhaps MWI is a better and simpler explanation of
the facts of quantum mechanics than is CI, for example.

Multiple-worlds are a consequence of dropping the collapse of the wave 
function,
which was inexplicable and ad hoc.
 
 
 It's neither. If anything there is an embarassment of explanations for
 it,
 and number of motivations for positing it.
 
 A genuine problem with MWI: it starts with the assumption that the
 universe is in a 'pure' state. However, unitary evolution under the SWE
 is unable to fully transform a pure state into a genuine mixture. It
 can generate (by mechanisms similar to environmental decoherence) an
 approximate mixture -- For All Practical Purposes. Since collapse does,
 by stipulation, produce orthogonal states, there is a difference
 between collapse interpretations and MW. The residual interferences
 could be detectable. (It is also believed by many that collapse itself
 is detectable).
 
 In fact it turns out that in the general case , there will be a unique
 pair of orthogonal perception states accompanying a pair of orthogonal
 cat states. This is something known as the Schmidt decomposition of an
 entangled state. However this is not much use for resolving the
 measurement paradox (...) because gernerally this mathematically
 preferred pair of cat states (..) would not be the desired |live cat +
 | dead cat at all, but some linear superposition of these! [...] Since
 the mathematics alone will not single out the |live cat and |dead cat
 states as being in any way 'preferred' we still need a theory of
 perception before we can make sense of [MWI] and such a theory is
 lacking.Moreover the onus on such a theory would be not only to explain
 why superpositions of dead and alive cats (or anything else
 macroscopic) occur in do not occur in the physical world but also why
 the wonderous and extraordinarily precise squared-modulus rule actually
 gives the right answers for probabilities in quantum mechanics!
 
 R. Penrose, Road to Reality p809
 
 
 Is MWI a complete solution to the paradoxes of QM? Is an Universal Wave
 Function feasible ?
 A genuine problem with MWI: Reasonableness of all-embracing unitary
 evolution. MWI-ers claim that the unitary evolution of the SWE (or some
 variation) is the single all-embracing law of the universe -- the other
 main part of the QM universe, the process of collapse (AKA reduction)
 is not needed. However, QM itself is not an all-encompassing physical
 theory because it does not include gravity and relativity. It might be
 possible to include gravity in an extended WE, but the conventional SWE
 requires a derivative against time, wich is difficult to achieve in a
 way that is compatible with the requirements of relativity. There is
 also a more conceptual argument against large-scale branching; since
 all branches co-exist in the same space-time, and since the disposition
 of matter determines how space bends in general relativity, large-scale
 differences between the branches would leave space not knowing which
 way to bend.

I'm well aware of the problems of MWI.  But I think Roger is too pessimistic 
about 
the potential of a theory of einselection.  There's an excellent review paper 
available on arXiv.org:

Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics
Authors: Maximilian Schlosshauer
Comments: 41 pages. Final published version
Journal-ref: Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267-1305 (2004)
DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267

 Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of 
intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the 
foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum 
measurement 
problem, have remained a matter of great controversy. This paper is intended to 
clarify key features of the decoherence program, including its more recent 
results, 
and to investigate their application and consequences in the context of the 
main 
interpretive approaches of quantum mechanics.

It discusses the sucesses and problems of the decoherence program and their 
relation 
to other intepretations.  I think you are wrong in saying the are plenty of 
explanations for collapse of the wave-function.  Penrose's is the only one that 
comes 
close to being an explanation, i.e. something with a physical basis that could 
be 
tested.  The others are just hueristic models.  Decoherence is experimentally 
tested 
and provides collapse FAPP; but the FAPP still leaves some problems.

Personally, I like Omnes' viewpoint, which is that QM is a probabilistic

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Brent Meeker]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Brent meeker writes:
 
 
But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am 
wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it up, 
tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up 
then maybe it is just an illusion. 

Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a certain 
state 
of photons) does exist, and other people can see it.  Even an illusion must 
exist as 
some brain process.  I understand Peters objection to regarding a mere 
bundle of 
properties as existent.  But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless 
substrate.  Why not just say that some bundles of properties are instantiated 
and 
some aren't.   Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material 
substrate which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...
 
 
 Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
 just a working 
 assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that 
 if we dig into 
 quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
 matter will still be 
 solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some mysterious 
 raw physical 
 substrate.

But I don't think we ever have anything but working assumptions; so we might 
as 
well call our best ones real; while keeping in mind we may have to change 
them.

If it passes all the tests I put it through 
then by definition it exists. If I want to claim that some other object 
exists, 
like Nessie, what I actually mean is that it exists *in the same way as this 
pencil exists*. The pencil is the gold standard: there is no other, more 
profound standard of existence against which it can be measured. 

I agree.  But the gold standard is not just that you see and touch that 
pencil - you 
might be hallucinating.  And you can't see an electron, or even a microbe.  
So what 
exists or not is a matter of adopting a model of the world; and the best 
models take 
account of a consistent theory of instruments as well as direct perception.
 
 
 By gold standard I did not mean just direct sensory experience, but every 
 possible 
 empirical test or measurement. A hallucination is a hallucination because 
 other people 
 don't see it, it does not register on a photograph, and so on. A 
 hallucination which 
 passed every possible reality test would not be a hallucination.
 
 Stathis Papaioannou

True.  But if we knew enough about how brains work we might be able to detect 
the 
processes within one having an hallucination and identify them as presenting, 
say an 
illusion of a pencil.  In that case we would say that it was a *real* 
hallucination - 
because then we have fitted it within our model of the world.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Brent Meeker writes:

  Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
  just a working 
  assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out 
  that if we dig into 
  quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
  matter will still be 
  solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
  mysterious raw physical 
  substrate.
 
 But I don't think we ever have anything but working assumptions; so we 
 might as 
 well call our best ones real; while keeping in mind we may have to change 
 them.

That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working assumption, 
there is some 
definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can observe, 
that is a 
metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to religious 
faith.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 25-août-06, à 23:24, 1Z a écrit :

 AR as a claim about truth is implied by comoputationalism, and is
 not enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
 of the UD.


It is you who come up with a notion of real existence. You are reifying 
I don't know which theory.




 AR as a claim about existence  is
 enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
 of the UD, but is not impied by computationalism.


And my WHOLE point is that it does not have to be that way.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 26-août-06, à 22:44, Brent Meeker a écrit :

  I understand Peters objection to regarding a mere bundle of
 properties as existent.  But I don't understand why one needs a 
 propertyless
 substrate.  Why not just say that some bundles of properties are 
 instantiated and
 some aren't.

I guess Peter needs it for having a notion of (absolute) instantiation. 
If Peter takes the relative notion of instantiation, which is number 
theoretical in nature, then he would loose any motivation for his bare 
matter.



  Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material
 substrate which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...


I doubt this. Yes current *interpretations* of physical theories do 
suppose a material substrate, but only for having peaceful sleep (like 
the collapse non-answer in QM). Anyway, the theories does not 
presuppose it. They presuppose only mathematical structure and 
quantitative functor between those mathematical structure and numbers 
that we can measure in some communicable ways.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Brent meeker writes:

   But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am
   wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it 
   up,
   tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up
   then maybe it is just an illusion.
 
  Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a 
  certain state
  of photons) does exist, and other people can see it.  Even an illusion must 
  exist as
  some brain process.  I understand Peters objection to regarding a mere 
  bundle of
  properties as existent.  But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless
  substrate.  Why not just say that some bundles of properties are 
  instantiated and
  some aren't.   Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material
  substrate which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...

 Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
 just a working
 assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that 
 if we dig into
 quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
 matter will still be
 solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some mysterious 
 raw physical
 substrate.


I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian solidity, which is as
you say
a matter of properties/behaviour.

I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Brent Meeker writes:

   Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
   just a working
   assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out 
   that if we dig into
   quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
   matter will still be
   solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
   mysterious raw physical
   substrate.
 
  But I don't think we ever have anything but working assumptions; so we 
  might as
  well call our best ones real; while keeping in mind we may have to change 
  them.

 That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working 
 assumption, there is some
 definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can observe, 
 that is a
 metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to religious 
 faith.


By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
solipsism.
I choose metaphsyics.
We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.

(BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 25-août-06, à 23:24, 1Z a écrit :

  AR as a claim about truth is implied by comoputationalism, and is
  not enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
  of the UD.


 It is you who come up with a notion of real existence.

I am starting with the reality my own existence.

That is an *empirical* fact.

 You are reifying
 I don't know which theory.

That's because it is empirical! Whatever theory explains
or doesn't explain my existence, I exist.

 
  AR as a claim about existence  is
  enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
  of the UD, but is not impied by computationalism.


 And my WHOLE point is that it does not have to be that way.

But you don't really address the existence question. You just loosely
assume it is the 
same thing as truth.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Brent Meeker]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Brent Meeker writes:
 
 
Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is 
just a working 
assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that 
if we dig into 
quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
matter will still be 
solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some 
mysterious raw physical 
substrate.

But I don't think we ever have anything but working assumptions; so we 
might as 
well call our best ones real; while keeping in mind we may have to change 
them.
 
 
 That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working 
 assumption, there is some 
 definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can observe, 
 that is a 
 metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to religious 
 faith.
 
 Stathis Papaioannou

I put working assumption in scare quotes because I think the fact that we can 
create models of the world that are successful over a wide domain of phenomena 
is 
evidence for an underlying reality.  It's not conclusive evidence, but reality 
is 
more than just an assumption.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[jamikes]

- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brent Meeker everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...



Brent Meeker writes:

  Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties
is just a working
  assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out
that if we dig into
  quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but
solid matter will still be
  solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some
mysterious raw physical
  substrate.

 But I don't think we ever have anything but working assumptions; so we
might as
 well call our best ones real; while keeping in mind we may have to
change them.

SP reply:
That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working
assumption, there is some
definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can observe,
that is a
metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to
religious faith.
Stathis Papaioannou

JM:
Brent can call it anything he likes, as long as he does not consider it a
reality and Stathis can call it anything he likes, as long as he does not
considers it a faith.
I work with narratives - consider them working assumptions (hypotheses)
with an open mind for getting contradictions and so changing their
conditions. This prevents me from calling it reality and developing a
faith in it, which (both) assign absolute truth to the idea(s) involved.

John M


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[David Nyman]

1Z wrote:

   AR as a claim about truth is implied by comoputationalism, and is
   not enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
   of the UD.
 
 
  It is you who come up with a notion of real existence.

 I am starting with the reality my own existence.

 That is an *empirical* fact.

  You are reifying
  I don't know which theory.

 That's because it is empirical! Whatever theory explains
 or doesn't explain my existence, I exist.

  
   AR as a claim about existence  is
   enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
   of the UD, but is not impied by computationalism.
 
 
  And my WHOLE point is that it does not have to be that way.

 But you don't really address the existence question. You just loosely
 assume it is the
 same thing as truth.

Could I appeal to Bruno at this juncture to address this point
directly?! At several places in our own dialogues, Bruno, you've
implied that your 'number theology' was an 'as if' postulate, because
(if I've understood) you are concerned to see how much can be explained
by starting from this particular set of assumptions. I don't believe
that you are claiming they are 'true' in an exclusive sense, rather
that they are enlightening. Is this a correct interpretation of your
position, or is there further nuance?

David

 Bruno Marchal wrote:
  Le 25-août-06, à 23:24, 1Z a écrit :
 
   AR as a claim about truth is implied by comoputationalism, and is
   not enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
   of the UD.
 
 
  It is you who come up with a notion of real existence.

 I am starting with the reality my own existence.

 That is an *empirical* fact.

  You are reifying
  I don't know which theory.

 That's because it is empirical! Whatever theory explains
 or doesn't explain my existence, I exist.

  
   AR as a claim about existence  is
   enough to support the real (=as real as I am) existence
   of the UD, but is not impied by computationalism.
 
 
  And my WHOLE point is that it does not have to be that way.

 But you don't really address the existence question. You just loosely
 assume it is the 
 same thing as truth.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Peter Jones writes:

 Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
 may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
 dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
 matter add to a merely abstract set of properties? The answer is that
 not all bundles of posible properties are instantiated, that they
 exist.
 What does it mean to say something exists ? ..exists is a meaningful
 predicate of concepts rather than things. The thing must exist in some
 sense to be talked about. But if it existed full, a statement like
 Nessie doesn't exist would be a contradiction ...it would amout to
 the existing thign Nessie doesnt exist. However, if we take that the
 some sense in which the subject of an ...exists predicate exists is
 only initially as a concept, we can then say whether or not the concept
 has something to refer to. Thus Bigfoot exists would mean the
 concept 'Bigfoot' has a referent.
 
 What matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-existent
 bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility. Thus the
 concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of contingency or
 somethingism -- the idea that only certain possible things exist.

But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am 
wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it up, 
tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up 
then maybe it is just an illusion. If it passes all the tests I put it through 
then by definition it exists. If I want to claim that some other object exists, 
like Nessie, what I actually mean is that it exists *in the same way as this 
pencil exists*. The pencil is the gold standard: there is no other, more 
profound standard of existence against which it can be measured. 

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Brent Meeker]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Peter Jones writes:
 
 
Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
matter add to a merely abstract set of properties? The answer is that
not all bundles of posible properties are instantiated, that they
exist.
What does it mean to say something exists ? ..exists is a meaningful
predicate of concepts rather than things. The thing must exist in some
sense to be talked about. But if it existed full, a statement like
Nessie doesn't exist would be a contradiction ...it would amout to
the existing thign Nessie doesnt exist. However, if we take that the
some sense in which the subject of an ...exists predicate exists is
only initially as a concept, we can then say whether or not the concept
has something to refer to. Thus Bigfoot exists would mean the
concept 'Bigfoot' has a referent.

What matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-existent
bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility. Thus the
concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of contingency or
somethingism -- the idea that only certain possible things exist.
 
 
 But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am 
 wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it up, 
 tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up 
 then maybe it is just an illusion. 

Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a certain 
state 
of photons) does exist, and other people can see it.  Even an illusion must 
exist as 
some brain process.  I understand Peters objection to regarding a mere bundle 
of 
properties as existent.  But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless 
substrate.  Why not just say that some bundles of properties are instantiated 
and 
some aren't.   Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material 
substrate which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...

If it passes all the tests I put it through 
 then by definition it exists. If I want to claim that some other object 
 exists, 
 like Nessie, what I actually mean is that it exists *in the same way as this 
 pencil exists*. The pencil is the gold standard: there is no other, more 
 profound standard of existence against which it can be measured. 

I agree.  But the gold standard is not just that you see and touch that pencil 
- you 
might be hallucinating.  And you can't see an electron, or even a microbe.  So 
what 
exists or not is a matter of adopting a model of the world; and the best models 
take 
account of a consistent theory of instruments as well as direct perception.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Brent meeker writes:

  But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am 
  wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it 
  up, 
  tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up 
  then maybe it is just an illusion. 
 
 Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a certain 
 state 
 of photons) does exist, and other people can see it.  Even an illusion must 
 exist as 
 some brain process.  I understand Peters objection to regarding a mere 
 bundle of 
 properties as existent.  But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless 
 substrate.  Why not just say that some bundles of properties are instantiated 
 and 
 some aren't.   Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material 
 substrate which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...

Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is just 
a working 
assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that if 
we dig into 
quarks very deeply there is nothing substantial there at all, but solid 
matter will still be 
solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some mysterious 
raw physical 
substrate.
 
 If it passes all the tests I put it through 
  then by definition it exists. If I want to claim that some other object 
  exists, 
  like Nessie, what I actually mean is that it exists *in the same way as 
  this 
  pencil exists*. The pencil is the gold standard: there is no other, more 
  profound standard of existence against which it can be measured. 
 
 I agree.  But the gold standard is not just that you see and touch that 
 pencil - you 
 might be hallucinating.  And you can't see an electron, or even a microbe.  
 So what 
 exists or not is a matter of adopting a model of the world; and the best 
 models take 
 account of a consistent theory of instruments as well as direct perception.

By gold standard I did not mean just direct sensory experience, but every 
possible 
empirical test or measurement. A hallucination is a hallucination because other 
people 
don't see it, it does not register on a photograph, and so on. A hallucination 
which 
passed every possible reality test would not be a hallucination.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


 No, it won't be bored because there is no way for it to know that it is going 
 through the
 first or the second run. The point I was trying to make is that there is no 
 real basis for
 distinguishing between a recording and a program,


There is a basis for distinguishing between a programme and a process.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[1Z]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 21-août-06, à 16:23, 1Z a écrit :

 
 
  Bruno Marchal wrote:
  Le 21-août-06, à 13:34, 1Z a écrit :
 
 
  If Plato's heaven doesn't exist, I can't be in it.
 
 
  I can hardly not agree with that.
 
 
 
  If numbers do not explain my existence -- explaining
  how a strucuture like a physial world would emerge from
  a UD if a UD existed does not explain my *existence* --
  then something else does, such  as matter.
 
 
  1) I don't think think so at all. Even if numbers cannot explain your
  existence, it does not follows that matter can explain it, nor God,
  nor
  anything else a priori.
 
  Matter has been a succesful explanation for many centuries -- an
  aposteriori explanation. Who said that only apriori explanations are
  acceptable ?
  Is that the premiss underlying your other premisses ?


 I talk about primitive or primary matter. Just show me one text where
 that notion explain anything.


Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
matter add to a merely abstract set of properties? The answer is that
not all bundles of posible properties are instantiated, that they
exist.
What does it mean to say something exists ? ..exists is a meaningful
predicate of concepts rather than things. The thing must exist in some
sense to be talked about. But if it existed full, a statement like
Nessie doesn't exist would be a contradiction ...it would amout to
the existing thign Nessie doesnt exist. However, if we take that the
some sense in which the subject of an ...exists predicate exists is
only initially as a concept, we can then say whether or not the concept
has something to refer to. Thus Bigfoot exists would mean the
concept 'Bigfoot' has a referent.

What matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-existent
bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility. Thus the
concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of contingency or
somethingism -- the idea that only certain possible things exist.

The other issue matter is able to explain as a result of having no
properties of its own is the issue of change and time. For change to be
distinguishable from mere succession, it must be change in something.
It could be a contingent natural law that certain properties never
change. However, with a propertiless substrate, it becomes a logical
necessity that the substrate endures through change; since all changes
are changes in properties, a propertiless substrate cannot itself
change and must endure through change




 I have never find a physical theory using it, except that it is
 implicitly assume in the background, but the notion are never referred
 too.

All physics assumes Somethingism -- it seeks to find the one
mathemticals structure, out of all the structures in Platonia
that describes the universe. Since  i define matter in a somethingist
way, that means all physics is materialist.


  It can also provide support for time and qulia, and
  explain away HP universes.


 All serious people in the philosophy of mind agree that the mind-body
 problem is not yet solved.

There is difference between providing an explanation, making
and explanation possible, and making an explanation impossible.

Matterialism per se does not provide a solution to the MBP.

Matter makes certain classes of solution possible-- e.g. property
dualism.

Immaterialism makes the MBP harder or impossible.

http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/diagrams/matter_substrate.jpg

 Even Dennett agrees on this in the last
 chapter of his consciousness explained. Matter makes things worst
 because, at least with comp, we have to justify it without positing it.

Computationalism alone does not justify the existnce
of an entity capable of being appeared-to; so by itself
it does not allow matter to be explained away as an appearance.


  Everett is compatible with standard computationalism.
  It doesn't have to assume computationalism. Any non-magical
  theory of mind will do.


 Well, actually I do agree a bit with you here. But comp is assumed by
 almost all many-worlder. This is because comp is the only known theory
 of mind which does not posit actual infinities,

Not at all. The uncomputability of matter, qualia
or anything else does not have to be justified in mathematical
terms by their being actual infinities. It can be justified
by their being fundamentally un-mathematical. For the
non-Platonist, it is a peculiarty of abstract mathematical
structures and behaviour that they can be emulated without deficit.
Non-emulability, by contrast , is just business as usual.

. and in general people
 attracted to MW are motivated by searching a theory compatatible with
 reasonable approach to the mind.


  Not just computationalism, because you need to
  assume a UD exists

 No. The UD exists by AR, without which CT would not make sense

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

John,

Le 23-août-06, à 22:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

 As I 'believe': anything recognized by our 'senses' are our mental 
 interpretations of the unattainable 'reality' (if we condone its 
 validity). My world is a posteriori.


This is almost my favorite way to explain Plato in one sentence.
Now with pythagorean-plato (discussed in Plato, but even more by the 
neoplatonists), the question is open that the ultimate reality is the 
reality of the numbers law. Note that after Godel-Turing-Post-Church... 
, betting on our own consistency, we know, at least, why and how such 
an ultimate reality (numbers) is forever unattainable (contrary to the 
pregodelian, leibnizian old belief that number are easy to get 
through.
I mean natural number (real numbers or complex numbers are terrible 
simplification tools, unless you define the trigonometric function 
which reintroduce the natural numbers in the real or complex 
picture.

Best regards,

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 21-août-06, à 16:23, 1Z a écrit :



 Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Le 21-août-06, à 13:34, 1Z a écrit :


 If Plato's heaven doesn't exist, I can't be in it.


 I can hardly not agree with that.



 If numbers do not explain my existence -- explaining
 how a strucuture like a physial world would emerge from
 a UD if a UD existed does not explain my *existence* --
 then something else does, such  as matter.


 1) I don't think think so at all. Even if numbers cannot explain your
 existence, it does not follows that matter can explain it, nor God, 
 nor
 anything else a priori.

 Matter has been a succesful explanation for many centuries -- an
 aposteriori explanation. Who said that only apriori explanations are
 acceptable ?
 Is that the premiss underlying your other premisses ?


I talk about primitive or primary matter. Just show me one text where 
that notion explain anything.
I have never find a physical theory using it, except that it is 
implicitly assume in the background, but the notion are never referred 
too.





 Actually, assuming the comp hyp., the UDA shows
 precisely why a notion of primitive matter cannot explain the mind.

 Matter can explain anything computationalism or
 mathematics can explain, since any computaiotnal
 or mathematical structurecan be implmented in matter.


Read UDA. Primary matter is shown to be without any explanatory 
purpose. You can still believe in it, like anyone can believe that car 
are really pulled by invisible horses, and no thermodynamician will be 
able to prove that wrong. They can only argue it is unnecessary. All 
the same with UDA: it shows that primary matter has no purpose.



 It can also provide support for time and qulia, and
 explain away HP universes.


All serious people in the philosophy of mind agree that the mind-body 
problem is not yet solved. Even Dennett agrees on this in the last 
chapter of his consciousness explained. Matter makes things worst 
because, at least with comp, we have to justify it without positing it.






 2) Numbers, and the UD, by existing just in the usual sense of realist
 mathematicians (like in statements similar to it exists a perfect
 number)  explains completely your (correct, non illusory)  *feeling*
 of existence, including both the sharable part of it (quanta) and the
 unsharable part of it (the qualia).

 Only if the usual sense of realist mathematicians is
 a sense amouting to the kind of existence I actually
 have (even if I mistakenly think that is material existence,
 I still have ot exist in some sense in order to make the mistake!).

 But that is what I have been saying all along. The argumentative
 work is being done by the hidden assumption of Platonism,
 not the explicit assumption of computationalism.

 3) ... and all this in a testable way, given that comp makes precise
 predictions.

 Let me simplify to be clearer. The TOE has made progress:


 1) Copenhagen TOE:

   -Numbers
   -Wave equation
   -Unintelligible mind theory (collapse)



 2) Everett TOE:

 -Wave equation

 Everett is compatible with standard computationalism.
 It doesn't have to assume computationalism. Any non-magical
 theory of mind will do.


Well, actually I do agree a bit with you here. But comp is assumed by 
almost all many-worlder. This is because comp is the only known theory 
of mind which does not posit actual infinities, and in general people 
attracted to MW are motivated by searching a theory compatatible with 
reasonable approach to the mind.




 Not just computationalism, because you need to
 assume a UD exists

No. The UD exists by AR, without which CT would not make sense.
I recall that by the UD exists, I mean just that the truth of some 
existential proposition in number theory is independent of me.
I'm afraid you are defending a (widespread) aristotelian misconception 
of Platonia, like if it was some magical realm in which the numbers 
exists, when I just mean the usual meaning of existence of numbers. Yes 
the usual meaning is platonist. Mathematicians are almost all platonist 
about natural numbers, even the week-end.
I think that if you study the UDA, it will be easier for you to 
interpret the terms by the use I make of them.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Peter Jones writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):

  People who believes that inputs (being either absolute-material or
  relative-platonical) are needed for consciousness should not believe
  that we can be conscious in a dream, given the evidence that the brain
  is almost completely cut out from the environment during rem sleep.
 
 The brain didn't evolve to dream.

Clearly the brain *did* evolve to dream, although we don't really understand 
the 
evolutionary advantage of dreaming, or for that matter sleeping. But that is 
beside the point: the question is whether interaction with an external 
environment 
is necessary for consciousness, and I think dreaming is one situation which 
shows 
that it is not.

(To be fair, one could argue that dreaming does involve environmental input in 
that 
at the very least there is proprioceptive feedback from the rapid eye 
movements, 
and there is no dreaming during non-REM sleep. However, I think that is just a 
technical detail, as it is easy enough to imagine a brain dreaming without this 
input, 
or with the input provided by self-exciting neurons.)

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 22-août-06, à 18:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

 So where is the key to translate number-monsters into 
 thought-monsters?

In front of you. Computer or universal machine, or universal numbers. 
More explanation in the posts.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 23-août-06, à 03:58, Brent Meeker a écrit :


 People who believes that inputs (being either absolute-material or
 relative-platonical) are needed for consciousness should not believe
 that we can be conscious in a dream, given the evidence that the brain
 is almost completely cut out from the environment during rem sleep.

 Almost is not completely.

I am glad you don't insist.


  In any case, I don't think consciousness is maintained
 indefinitely with no inputs.  I think a brain-in-a-vat would go into 
 an endless
 loop without external stimulus.


OK, but for our reasoning it is enough consciousness is maintained a 
nanosecond (relatively to us).



 I
 guess they have no problem with comatose people either.

 Comatose people are generally referred to as unconscious.

? ? ?
I mean this *is* the question. In mind'sI (Dennett Hofstadter) we learn 
that a woman has been in comatose state during 50 years (if I remember 
correctly), and said she never stop to be conscious.
They are more than one form of comatose state. To say they are 
unconscious is debatable at the least. And then there is the case of 
dreams. And for those who does not like dream, what about the following 
question: take a child and enclose him/her in a box completely isolated 
from the environement. Would that fact suppress his/her consciousness?
Some parents will appreciate and feel less guilty with such ideas ...


 Of course they cannot be even just troubled by the UD, which is a
 program without inputs and without outputs.

 As I understood the UD the program itself was not conscious, but 
 rather that some
 parts are supposed to be, relative to a simulated environment.

Yes. some person attached to (infinity) of special computations, 
indeed.



 Now, without digging in the movie-graph, I would still be interested 
 if
 someone accepting standard comp (Peter's expression) could explain
 how a digital machine could correctly decide that her environment is
 real-physical.

 Decide is ambiguous.  She could very well form that hypothesis and 
 find much
 confirming and no contrary evidence.  What are you asking for?  a 
 proof from some
 axioms?  Which axioms?

Sorry, I have used the word decide in the logician sense (like in 
undecidable). To decide = to proof, or to test, or to solve, in some 
math sense.
Which axioms? Indeed, good question, that's makes my point. Well, I was 
thinking about some physical theory the someone would argue for. 
Anyone a priori.


 If such machine and reasoning exist, it will be done
 in Platonia, and, worst, assuming comp, it will be done as correctly 
 as
 the real machine argument. This would lead to the fact that in
 Platonia, there are (many) immaterial machines proving *correctly* 
 that
 they are immaterial. Contradiction.

 Suppose a physical machine implements computation and proves relative 
 to some axioms
 that physical machines don't exist.  Contradiction?

If by physical you mean what Peter Jones means, then indeed the 
physical machine is in contradiction. This means that her axioms are 
indeed contradictory. If moreover, the physical machine gives a 
correct proof, as as I say in the quotes, then we get a total 
contradiction, like a proof that PI is an integer, for example. That we 
are in contradiction.
As far as we are consistent, this just means that no X-machine can 
correctly proof that X-machine does not exist.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Brent Meeker]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 Brent Meeker writes:
 
 
Almost is not completely.  In any case, I don't think consciousness is 
maintained 
indefinitely with no inputs.  I think a brain-in-a-vat would go into an 
endless 
loop without external stimulus.
 
 
 That's an assumption, 

No, it has empirical support. It is what is reported by people in extended 
sensory 
deprivation experiments.

but even if true it would only say something about the 
 nature of human brains. It is easy enough to imagine a brain with 
 self-excitatory 
 neurons that provide the same kind of input as the environment does, 
 modulating
 their activity in response to feedback from other neurons. It would just be a 
 technical problem to ensure that it didn't go into an endless loop.

Without inherent (quantum) randomness?  I don't think so.  Close deterministic 
systems have a Poincare return time.

Brent Meeker


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[jamikes]

Bruno:

why do I have difficulties to go along 
with many of you?
E.g. when you wrote (and not you brought 
up the ominous "axiom"):
"...Which axioms? Indeed, good 
question, that's makes my point. Well, I was thinking about some physical 
theory the "someone" would argue for. Anyone a 
priori."
I dislike 'axioms', but do not trust my 
dislike, so I looked up Wikipedia's definition to have something to argue 
against G. It said:

An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is taken for granted as 
true, and serves as a starting point for deducing other truths. In many usage 
axiom and postulate are 
used as synonyms.
In certain epistemological 
theories, an axiom is a self-evident 
truth upon which other knowledge must rest, and from which other knowledge is 
built up. An axiom in this sense can be known before one knows any of these 
other propostions. Not all epistemologists 
agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.
In logic and mathematics, an 
axiom is not necessarily a self-evident truth, but rather a formal 
logical _expression_ used in a deduction to yield further results. To 
axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that all of its claims can be 
derived from a small set of sentences that are independent of one another. This 
does not imply that they could have been known independently; and there are 
typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given system of knowledge (such as 
arithmetic). 
Mathematics distinguishes two types of axioms: logical 
axioms and non-logical 
axioms. 
It speaks for itself. "We" (not you and me) create axioms to make 'our' 
theories work. Then we consider the 'system' in question based on such axioms. I 
try to scrutinize them, to find alternates and scrutinize those also. 
The other one is an 'a priori (physical?) theory' - sounds in physics similar 
to 'your' numbers which you may consider 'a priori' existing. If I may ask: what 
'natural' senses may detect numbers? Unless. of course, you consider our mind a 
'natural sense' (what may be true). As I 'believe': anything recognized by 
our 'senses' are our mental interpretations of the unattainable 'reality' (if we 
condone its validity). "My world" is a posteriori.
Cheerz
John M

- Original Message - 

From: "Bruno Marchal" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:31 
AM
Subject: Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: 
ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Le 23-août-06, à 03:58, Brent Meeker a écrit 
: People who believes that inputs (being either 
absolute-material or relative-platonical) are needed for 
consciousness should not believe that we can be conscious in a 
dream, given the evidence that the brain is almost completely cut 
out from the environment during rem sleep. Almost is not 
completely.I am glad you don't insist. In any 
case, I don't think consciousness is maintained indefinitely with no 
inputs. I think a "brain-in-a-vat" would go into  an 
endless loop without external stimulus.OK, but for our 
reasoning it is enough consciousness is maintained a nanosecond (relatively 
to us). I guess they have no problem 
with comatose people either. Comatose people are generally 
referred to as "unconscious".? ? ?I mean this *is* the question. In 
mind'sI (Dennett Hofstadter) we learn that a woman has been in comatose 
state during 50 years (if I remember correctly), and said she never stop to 
be conscious.They are more than one form of comatose state. To say they are 
"unconscious" is debatable at the least. And then there is the case of 
dreams. And for those who does not like dream, what about the following 
question: take a child and enclose him/her in a box completely isolated 
from the environement. Would that fact suppress his/her 
consciousness?Some parents will appreciate and feel less guilty with such 
ideas ... Of course they cannot be even just troubled by 
the UD, which is a program without inputs and without 
outputs. As I understood the UD the program itself was not 
conscious, but  rather that some parts are supposed to be, 
relative to a simulated environment.Yes. some "person" attached to 
(infinity) of special computations, indeed. 
Now, without digging in the movie-graph, I would still be interested 
 if someone accepting "standard comp" (Peter's 
_expression_) could explain how a digital machine could correctly 
decide that her environment is "real-physical". 
"Decide" is ambiguous. She could very well form that hypothesis and 
 find much confirming and no contrary evidence. What are 
you asking for? a  proof from some axioms? Which 
axioms?Sorry, I have used the word "decide" in the logician sense (like 
in undecidable). To decide = to proof, or to test, or to solve, in some 
math sense.Which axioms? Indeed, good question, that's makes my point. 
Well, I was thinking about some physical the

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[jamikes]

- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

Le 22-août-06, à 18:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

 So where is the key to translate number-monsters into
 thought-monsters?

In front of you. Computer or universal machine, or universal numbers.
More explanation in the posts.

Bruno
---
Not as I see it. I tried to describe what I thought and ended up with the
question you emphasized above.
The posts (many of them) take the 'translational' key for granted, others
have similar doubts to mine.
No understandable bridging occurred for those who do not start from the
inside of the number world.  In any religion: you have to believe to
believe.

John






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 08/22/06



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 19-août-06, à 21:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John M.) a écrit :

 BTW I have a problem with the perfect 6:
 ITS DIVISORS are 1,2,3,6, the sum of which is 12, not 6 and it looks 
 that
 there is NO other perfect number in this sense either.

I have define a number to be perfect when it is equal to the sum of its 
proper divisor. Six is not a proper divisor of six.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 22-août-06, à 05:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :

 
x-tad-bigger- Original Message -/x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerFrom:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerBruno Marchal/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerTo:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggereverything-list@googlegroups.com/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerSent:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger Monday, August 21, 2006 6:39 AM/x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerSubject:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger Re: Rép: ROADMAP (well, not yet really.../x-tad-bigger


skip

I already told you that I interpret

There exists a prime number in plato heaven,

by


There exist a prime number is true independently of me, you, the universe ...

comp does not need a magical platonic realm in your sense. I don't introduce it for the notion of matter and it would be a fatal damage for comp if we were needing such a magic stuff for numbers.
Comp needs just arithmetical realism AR. It is just the idea that the truth value of arithmetical proposition, including existential propositions, does not depend on me or of any cognition apparatus (indeed cognition apparatus are defined, with comp, by relation between numbers, like in Artificial Intelligence, or in comp cognitive science. 

Bruno


There exist infinite prime numbers in Plato's heaven and 1000 of them can dance on the point of a pin.
I am sure you have something better thn that!
John 


Feynman discovered quantum computation by asking himself how many bits can be handled for a period of time on the point of a pin.
Engineers would appreciate to know how many primes numbers we could encode on a pin. This is not a silly question, although out of topic in our fundamental quest, I guess.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- 

RE: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Brent meeker writes (quoting Peter Jones, Quentin Anciaux and SP):

 Hi,
 
 Le Dimanche 20 Août 2006 05:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
 
 Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
 
 What about an inputless computer program, running deterministically
 like a recording. Would that count as a program at all,
 
 It would be a trivial case.
 
 Trivial does not mean false.
 
 It seems to me that the set of inputless programs contains the set of 
 programs 
 which have inputs. Because a program which have inputs could be written as 
 the following inputless program :
 
 |HARDCODED INPUT||CODE|
 
 The resulting program is input less but the substructure denominated CODE 
 here is not inputless, it takes the hardcoded input.
 
 So in any case I don't see why inputless program should be trivial case.
 
 Regards,
 Quentin
 
 I thought the question was not about computation, but whether a program was 
 intelligent or conscious.  I think that intelligence means being able to 
 respond to a 
 variety of differenet inputs.  So above |CODE| might be intelligent but not 
 the 
 overall inputless program.

OK, I suppose you could say I'm intelligent but not I + my environment are 
intelligent. 
That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent beings, 
and you are left 
with the problem of how to decide whether a physical system is implementing 
such a program 
given that you can't talk to it.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---