Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:33:46 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 9:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:08:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/15/2017 7:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a >>> quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom >>> that are isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled >>> with other things. An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers >>> to their state as UP or DOWN or LEFT or RIGHT. But that's not a complete >>> description of the silver atom. It has other degrees of freedom, which we >>> ignore as irrelevant to the SG measurement. So a "system" which we >>> describe as having a state, isn't necessarily the same as an object, like a >>> baseball or even an atom. A classical object like a baseball has lots of >>> degrees of freedom and they are interacting with the environment, so they >>> are entangled with states of the environment. Only certain collective >>> variables, e.g. the conserved ones like momentum, are stable in the stat >>> mech sense. These ones that are stable against interaction with the >>> environment are the einselected values we can measure classically. So we >>> could write a wave-function for the baseball as if it were an isolated >>> particle, like the silver atom, and ignore all the internal dof which are >>> not in any definite state because they're entangled with atmospheric >>> molecules and IR photons, etc. >>> >>> Whether something is in a superposition of states isn't an interesting >>> question because the answer is always "Yes...relative to some basis." The >>> interesting point is that since constituents in the baseball have >>> interacted with and are now entangled with air molecules, those >>> constituents of the baseball are not in any definite state. Only the >>> constituent PLUS the molecules it is entangled with has a definite state. >>> In any basis we can imagine measuring, they will be in a superposition >>> relative to that basis. But in theory there would some basis in which the >>> isolated baseball plus molecules would be an eigenstate; it's just so >>> complicated we could never measure in that basis. But if were to consider >>> a very simple system, like a few electrons then we might be able to measure >>> in the eigenbasis. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> TY. That was very informative. Let's go on. How does a micro constituent >> of a macro object get entangled with, say, an air molecule? When I think of >> entanglement, I think of some special process to it.create it. How does it >> happen spontaneously? Is it stable or does it decay rapidly, and if so into >> what? TIA. >> >> >> Don't think of the constituents as objects, think of them as degrees of >> or modes of excitations. So an N2 molecule collides with the baseball and >> it excites a certain vibration mode of the ball. Now that mode and the >> motion of the N2 molecule are entangled. If you're just interested in the >> ball you can just average over, trace out, the N2 molecule modes and then >> you're left with a mixed density matrix for the modes of the baseball. Of >> course all this changes very quickly, spreading the entanglement to more >> modes of the baseball, radiating some away as IR photons, more collisions >> of N2 and O2 molecules. That's decoherence that washes out all the >> coherent interference that we can observe with carefully isolated systems. >> It isn't decaying, it's diffusing the information about the microscopic dof >> into the environment. >> >> Brent >> > > Generally speaking, some particles of the macro object are entangled with > the environment, and some not. > > > Didn't I just tell you not to think that!? > I didn't forget. I just wanted to say something about the constituent particles and their entanglement with the environment, not about excited modes. Thanks for your time. > The particles of an object are all interacting with one another (which is > how they make an 'object') so they are all entangled with one another and > with the environment. But if you think about some mode that might be > excited, t
Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?
On 11/15/2017 9:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:08:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 11/15/2017 7:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being
in a quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some
degrees of freedom that are isolated, so they are not
interacting with and becoming entangled with other things.
An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers to
their state as UP or DOWN or LEFT or RIGHT. But that's not a
complete description of the silver atom. It has other
degrees of freedom, which we ignore as irrelevant to the SG
measurement. So a "system" which we describe as having a
state, isn't necessarily the same as an object, like a
baseball or even an atom. A classical object like a baseball
has lots of degrees of freedom and they are interacting with
the environment, so they are entangled with states of the
environment. Only certain collective variables, e.g. the
conserved ones like momentum, are stable in the stat mech
sense. These ones that are stable against interaction with
the environment are the einselected values we can measure
classically. So we could write a wave-function for the
baseball as if it were an isolated particle, like the silver
atom, and ignore all the internal dof which are not in any
definite state because they're entangled with atmospheric
molecules and IR photons, etc.
Whether something is in a superposition of states isn't an
interesting question because the answer is always
"Yes...relative to some basis." The interesting point is
that since constituents in the baseball have interacted with
and are now entangled with air molecules, those constituents
of the baseball are not in any definite state. Only the
constituent PLUS the molecules it is entangled with has a
definite state. In any basis we can imagine measuring, they
will be in a superposition relative to that basis. But in
theory there would some basis in which the isolated baseball
plus molecules would be an eigenstate; it's just so
complicated we could never measure in that basis. But if
were to consider a very simple system, like a few electrons
then we might be able to measure in the eigenbasis.
Brent
TY. That was very informative. Let's go on. How does a micro
constituent of a macro object get entangled with, say, an air
molecule? When I think of entanglement, I think of some special
process to it.create it. How does it happen spontaneously? Is it
stable or does it decay rapidly, and if so into what? TIA.
Don't think of the constituents as objects, think of them as
degrees of or modes of excitations. So an N2 molecule collides
with the baseball and it excites a certain vibration mode of the
ball. Now that mode and the motion of the N2 molecule are
entangled. If you're just interested in the ball you can just
average over, trace out, the N2 molecule modes and then you're
left with a mixed density matrix for the modes of the baseball.
Of course all this changes very quickly, spreading the
entanglement to more modes of the baseball, radiating some away as
IR photons, more collisions of N2 and O2 molecules. That's
decoherence that washes out all the coherent interference that we
can observe with carefully isolated systems. It isn't decaying,
it's diffusing the information about the microscopic dof into the
environment.
Brent
Generally speaking, some particles of the macro object are entangled
with the environment, and some not.
Didn't I just tell you not to think that!? The particles of an object
are all interacting with one another (which is how they make an
'object') so they are all entangled with one another and with the
environment. But if you think about some mode that might be excited,
then you could represent that mode as a "thing" which was entangled with
a single N2 that had collided with the ball and created that excitation.
In some basis, the entangled states are definite states (maybe not the
same basis for each).
In theory, any isolated system, not entangled with anything outside the
system, has a definite state. The problem with entanglement is that it
quickly diffuses out of the isolation unless extraordinary circumstances
obtain.
Can we say the same about unentangled particles (understood as modes
of excitations)? Do they have definite states? Is there any sense in
which the entire macro object is "in a definite state" (albeit
Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:08:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 7:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a >> quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom >> that are isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled >> with other things. An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers >> to their state as UP or DOWN or LEFT or RIGHT. But that's not a complete >> description of the silver atom. It has other degrees of freedom, which we >> ignore as irrelevant to the SG measurement. So a "system" which we >> describe as having a state, isn't necessarily the same as an object, like a >> baseball or even an atom. A classical object like a baseball has lots of >> degrees of freedom and they are interacting with the environment, so they >> are entangled with states of the environment. Only certain collective >> variables, e.g. the conserved ones like momentum, are stable in the stat >> mech sense. These ones that are stable against interaction with the >> environment are the einselected values we can measure classically. So we >> could write a wave-function for the baseball as if it were an isolated >> particle, like the silver atom, and ignore all the internal dof which are >> not in any definite state because they're entangled with atmospheric >> molecules and IR photons, etc. >> >> Whether something is in a superposition of states isn't an interesting >> question because the answer is always "Yes...relative to some basis." The >> interesting point is that since constituents in the baseball have >> interacted with and are now entangled with air molecules, those >> constituents of the baseball are not in any definite state. Only the >> constituent PLUS the molecules it is entangled with has a definite state. >> In any basis we can imagine measuring, they will be in a superposition >> relative to that basis. But in theory there would some basis in which the >> isolated baseball plus molecules would be an eigenstate; it's just so >> complicated we could never measure in that basis. But if were to consider >> a very simple system, like a few electrons then we might be able to measure >> in the eigenbasis. >> >> Brent >> > > TY. That was very informative. Let's go on. How does a micro constituent > of a macro object get entangled with, say, an air molecule? When I think of > entanglement, I think of some special process to it.create it. How does it > happen spontaneously? Is it stable or does it decay rapidly, and if so into > what? TIA. > > > Don't think of the constituents as objects, think of them as degrees of or > modes of excitations. So an N2 molecule collides with the baseball and it > excites a certain vibration mode of the ball. Now that mode and the motion > of the N2 molecule are entangled. If you're just interested in the ball > you can just average over, trace out, the N2 molecule modes and then you're > left with a mixed density matrix for the modes of the baseball. Of course > all this changes very quickly, spreading the entanglement to more modes of > the baseball, radiating some away as IR photons, more collisions of N2 and > O2 molecules. That's decoherence that washes out all the coherent > interference that we can observe with carefully isolated systems. It isn't > decaying, it's diffusing the information about the microscopic dof into the > environment. > > Brent > Generally speaking, some particles of the macro object are entangled with the environment, and some not. In some basis, the entangled states are definite states (maybe not the same basis for each). Can we say the same about unentangled particles (understood as modes of excitations)? Do they have definite states? Is there any sense in which the entire macro object is "in a definite state" (albeit fluctuating)? TIA. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?
On 11/15/2017 7:36 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom that are isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled with other things. An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers to their state as UP or DOWN or LEFT or RIGHT. But that's not a complete description of the silver atom. It has other degrees of freedom, which we ignore as irrelevant to the SG measurement. So a "system" which we describe as having a state, isn't necessarily the same as an object, like a baseball or even an atom. A classical object like a baseball has lots of degrees of freedom and they are interacting with the environment, so they are entangled with states of the environment. Only certain collective variables, e.g. the conserved ones like momentum, are stable in the stat mech sense. These ones that are stable against interaction with the environment are the einselected values we can measure classically. So we could write a wave-function for the baseball as if it were an isolated particle, like the silver atom, and ignore all the internal dof which are not in any definite state because they're entangled with atmospheric molecules and IR photons, etc. Whether something is in a superposition of states isn't an interesting question because the answer is always "Yes...relative to some basis." The interesting point is that since constituents in the baseball have interacted with and are now entangled with air molecules, those constituents of the baseball are not in any definite state. Only the constituent PLUS the molecules it is entangled with has a definite state. In any basis we can imagine measuring, they will be in a superposition relative to that basis. But in theory there would some basis in which the isolated baseball plus molecules would be an eigenstate; it's just so complicated we could never measure in that basis. But if were to consider a very simple system, like a few electrons then we might be able to measure in the eigenbasis. Brent TY. That was very informative. Let's go on. How does a micro constituent of a macro object get entangled with, say, an air molecule? When I think of entanglement, I think of some special process to it.create it. How does it happen spontaneously? Is it stable or does it decay rapidly, and if so into what? TIA. Don't think of the constituents as objects, think of them as degrees of freedom or modes of excitations. So an N2 molecule collides with the baseball and it excites a certain vibration mode of the ball. Now that mode and the motion of the N2 molecule are entangled. If you're just interested in the ball you can just average over, trace out, the N2 molecule modes and then you're left with a mixed density matrix for the modes of the baseball. Of course all this changes very quickly, spreading the entanglement to more modes of the baseball, radiating some away as IR photons, more collisions of N2 and O2 molecules. That's decoherence that washes out all the coherent interference that we can observe with carefully isolated systems. It isn't decaying, it's diffusing the information about the microscopic dof into the environment. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a quantum > state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom that are > isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled with > other things. An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers to > their state as UP or DOWN or LEFT or RIGHT. But that's not a complete > description of the silver atom. It has other degrees of freedom, which we > ignore as irrelevant to the SG measurement. So a "system" which we > describe as having a state, isn't necessarily the same as an object, like a > baseball or even an atom. A classical object like a baseball has lots of > degrees of freedom and they are interacting with the environment, so they > are entangled with states of the environment. Only certain collective > variables, e.g. the conserved ones like momentum, are stable in the stat > mech sense. These ones that are stable against interaction with the > environment are the einselected values we can measure classically. So we > could write a wave-function for the baseball as if it were an isolated > particle, like the silver atom, and ignore all the internal dof which are > not in any definite state because they're entangled with atmospheric > molecules and IR photons, etc. > > Whether something is in a superposition of states isn't an interesting > question because the answer is always "Yes...relative to some basis." The > interesting point is that since constituents in the baseball have > interacted with and are now entangled with air molecules, those > constituents of the baseball are not in any definite state. Only the > constituent PLUS the molecules it is entangled with has a definite state. > In any basis we can imagine measuring, they will be in a superposition > relative to that basis. But in theory there would some basis in which the > isolated baseball plus molecules would be an eigenstate; it's just so > complicated we could never measure in that basis. But if were to consider > a very simple system, like a few electrons then we might be able to measure > in the eigenbasis. > > Brent > TY. That was very informative. Let's go on. How does a micro constituent of a macro object get entangled with, say, an air molecule? When I think of entanglement, I think of some special process to it.create it. How does it happen spontaneously? Is it stable or does it decay rapidly, and if so into what? TIA. > > On 11/15/2017 5:56 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Consider a baseball. Is it in some kind of composite state, however > defined, of its constituents? Are all its constituents entangled with the > environment? If some are not, are they in a superposition of states? I pose > these questions because in my discussions with Clark on another thread, > it's unclear what state, if any, a macro object is in, assuming that state > fluctuates. TIA. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?
Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom that are isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled with other things. An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers to their state as UP or DOWN or LEFT or RIGHT. But that's not a complete description of the silver atom. It has other degrees of freedom, which we ignore as irrelevant to the SG measurement. So a "system" which we describe as having a state, isn't necessarily the same as an object, like a baseball or even an atom. A classical object like a baseball has lots of degrees of freedom and they are interacting with the environment, so they are entangled with states of the environment. Only certain collective variables, e.g. the conserved ones like momentum, are stable in the stat mech sense. These ones that are stable against interaction with the environment are the einselected values we can measure classically. So we could write a wave-function for the baseball as if it were an isolated particle, like the silver atom, and ignore all the internal dof which are not in any definite state because they're entangled with atmospheric molecules and IR photons, etc. Whether something is in a superposition of states isn't an interesting question because the answer is always "Yes...relative to some basis." The interesting point is that since constituents in the baseball have interacted with and are now entangled with air molecules, those constituents of the baseball are not in any definite state. Only the constituent PLUS the molecules it is entangled with has a definite state. In any basis we can imagine measuring, they will be in a superposition relative to that basis. But in theory there would some basis in which the isolated baseball plus molecules would be an eigenstate; it's just so complicated we could never measure in that basis. But if were to consider a very simple system, like a few electrons then we might be able to measure in the eigenbasis. Brent On 11/15/2017 5:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Consider a baseball. Is it in some kind of composite state, however defined, of its constituents? Are all its constituents entangled with the environment? If some are not, are they in a superposition of states? I pose these questions because in my discussions with Clark on another thread, it's unclear what state, if any, a macro object is in, assuming that state fluctuates. TIA. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
What is the quantum state of a macro object?
Consider a baseball. Is it in some kind of composite state, however defined, of its constituents? Are all its constituents entangled with the environment? If some are not, are they in a superposition of states? I pose these questions because in my discussions with Clark on another thread, it's unclear what state, if any, a macro object is in, assuming that state fluctuates. TIA. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
That was a discrete comment. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
My discrete mathematics professor once said there are two types of students: those you can't teach mathematics and those you don't have to. I got a kick out of that -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
Good article Liz, I believe that physicists and astronomers tend to follow the teachings of mathematicians from centuries before, and to this list we can now add computer gearheads. To develop the research tools to makes discoveries predicted by math heads, takes a long while and a sufficiency of money. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 1:48 am Subject: Re: The Object More from those crazy mathematicians http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-s-shadow/ Mathematicians weren’t sure that the monster group actually existed, but they knew that if it did exist, it acted in special ways in particular dimensions, the first two of which were 1 and 196,883. On 8 April 2015 at 14:26, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ha! I can believe that a hypercomputing lobian machine can zip through the platonic realities that likely exist, but I must say professor Marchal, that experiencing mathematics at the chalk board, my dendrites do not function as well as your own. I will say the obvious that my neurological wiring must have been sub par when attempting to learn and, equally, important, memorize the patterns that mathematics involves. Memorize the patterns, then plug in whatever numbers. I believe that maths teachers run into differences in human neurobiology, rather than bad teaching skills or lazy students, or whatever excuse. Thus, being able to learn mathematics is truly a gift, and is not bestowed on everyone. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 03:01 PM Subject: Re: The Object On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. Well said Liz. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
Re: The Object
I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
Hi Liz, The guy was a computer sci dude before he shifted to philosophy. He's a phil prof at William Patterson University, in New Jersey, the States. He has downloadable papers at his Ericsteinhart.com website, and is view-able with short lectures, no longer than 7 minutes on Youtube, usually about 5 minutes. This is what makes his ideas so valid, I think, the compsci stuff, because increasing, the astronomers and physicists are getting down to explaining their discoveries with comp sci/math/ yadda yadda. I have butchered his ideas, to suit my own goals regarding mortality (he may not agree with me!) and intellectually, he is all over the place from atheism to pantheism to polytheism, to a sort of selective monotheism. Dude likes a form a Buddhism for himself His Revision theory of Resurrection is that your own life becomes a basis for a new one in a new universe, that's better, but no memories-identity passes through, but its better for your clone. I say, meh! Lose identity, lose leanings. This is also much closer in nature to Everett's MWI which splits our existence, as observers among electrons and photons. To that: By the way, how is Liz number 345,765,098,265 doing after she decided to move to Alaska, for the weather (blink blink!)?? Clones and more clones, meh! Steinhart has a much better answer (in my opinion) with his Promotion theory. He has analyzed what the cosmology would mean, for mind, conscious, the creator(s), and it breaks down to what Bruno likes, maths-arithmetic, cellular automata, programs, subroutines, processes, pipelines, promoting, data transfer, digital, analog, whatever else. He is not the first guy to think about this, Claude Shannon, Von Newmann, Conrad Zuse, Juergen Schmidhuber, Fredkin, Moravec, Tegmark, but he is perhaps the most logical, and thorough. Yes, he can be wrong, but for me, at the worst he may be like a broken wind up clock, correct at least twice per day. I think that after 6 or 7 billion people alive in one generation, we the people (species) may have an interesting and correct answer here. And yes, it's still above my intellectual pay grade. Cheers -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 6, 2015 11:41 pm Subject: Re: The Object That all sounds very plausible to me. (Although sadly my pay grade doesn't match that fact.) -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. Well said Liz. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To 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. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
Ha! I can believe that a hypercomputing lobian machine can zip through the platonic realities that likely exist, but I must say professor Marchal, that experiencing mathematics at the chalk board, my dendrites do not function as well as your own. I will say the obvious that my neurological wiring must have been sub par when attempting to learn and, equally, important, memorize the patterns that mathematics involves. Memorize the patterns, then plug in whatever numbers. I believe that maths teachers run into differences in human neurobiology, rather than bad teaching skills or lazy students, or whatever excuse. Thus, being able to learn mathematics is truly a gift, and is not bestowed on everyone. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 03:01 PM Subject: Re: The Object div id=AOLMsgPart_2_bb69ed94-2d52-4245-9d7c-622ffc3f7cf7 div style=word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; class=aolReplacedBody div On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: br class=aolmail_Apple-interchange-newline blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arialI know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. /font /blockquote Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arialThe feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh!/font /blockquote blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arial div style=font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black -Original Message- From: LizR a target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object div id=aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_754ff7ab-4e9d-4bec-9dec-97cfa700b828 div dir=ltr By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. /div /div /div/font /blockquote Well said Liz. Bruno blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arial div style=font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black div id=aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_754ff7ab-4e9d-4bec-9dec-97cfa700b828 div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra /div /div -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div /div /font br class=aolmail_webkit-block-placeholder -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: The Object
More from those crazy mathematicians http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-s-shadow/ Mathematicians weren’t sure that the monster group actually existed, but they knew that if it did exist, it acted in special ways in particular dimensions, the first two of which were 1 and 196,883. On 8 April 2015 at 14:26, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ha! I can believe that a hypercomputing lobian machine can zip through the platonic realities that likely exist, but I must say professor Marchal, that experiencing mathematics at the chalk board, my dendrites do not function as well as your own. I will say the obvious that my neurological wiring must have been sub par when attempting to learn and, equally, important, memorize the patterns that mathematics involves. Memorize the patterns, then plug in whatever numbers. I believe that maths teachers run into differences in human neurobiology, rather than bad teaching skills or lazy students, or whatever excuse. Thus, being able to learn mathematics is truly a gift, and is not bestowed on everyone. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 03:01 PM Subject: Re: The Object On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. Well said Liz. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To 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. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. -- 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
Re: The Object
That all sounds very plausible to me. (Although sadly my pay grade doesn't match that fact.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Object
On 04 Apr 2015, at 19:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: My view is that rather than being a simulation, our universe and an infinitude of others,are programs that yields physical universes, as a programmatic process. ? That seems contradictory. Being a simulation means being brought by a program implemented in some universal number relation (physically realized or not, at first). The underlying software and hardware are more real than the reality we sense, OK, so we can take the simplest one: elementary arithmetic, for example. but our lives are very real. In the case above, our lives are very epistemologically, or phenomenologically real. Underneath everything is organized data, programs, processes, and pipelines to other universes (or parts of a greater very big universe). This is like using a God in an explanation. Why to introduce a universe to make programs and program execution, when we know that already exists once we assume elementary arithmetic? (with some measure that we can test so that we can test the hypothesis). So theoretically, humans and galaxies and bacteria, get promoted (as in software) to other places. I am stealing from Eric Steinhart's Promotion hypothesis, to suit my own pitiful intellect, and emotions. It is OK, but you don't need universes, still less other bigger universe. The whole of real math and physics use a tiny amount of arithmetical truth. Only logicians, category theorists and theologian needs sometimes to refer to the big one, the whole of the arithmetical reality, that we cannot even define from inside. That is *very* big. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 11:10 am Subject: Re: The Object Nice! Quite Platonist! We never invent anything---we always only discover. would assess a platonist. Bruno On 07 Jan 2015, at 23:54, Jason Resch wrote: From Douglas Jone's short story ( http://frombob.to/you/ aconvers.html ): But suppose it were possible to create physical universes like yours within an appropriately specified computational universe. What could you say about the origin of the universe then? Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers are equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation within any one computational universe, then there are an infinite number of computational universes in which this computation is performed. If you were to try to follow the chain of causality back past the origin of your physical universe, you would find an infinite number of causes. These are all deep, deep questions. We have been thinking about them, and doing experiments, for a very long time. Our mathematicians have proven certain things... I’m sorry, I have to be very careful about what I say here. There is the very real possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say too much. So let me say some vague things: There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain properties. For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general agreement on what the best name for this object is, so for the sake of convenience, let’s just call it The Object. Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is every universe that can possibly exist. And everything else that can exist, whether or not you would call it a universe. All of Mathematics is inside that Object. And the various parts of that Object are somehow connected together. We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the properties of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it. As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything. And exploring the nature of the connections between the various parts of The Object is the most fundamental kind of exploration there is. And some of the most interesting kinds of connections are related to Consciousness. The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no beginning and no end; it simply Is. It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you live in one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal too. The Time within them is visible only from a particular point of view. Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of creating a physical universe, or of creating anything, we are not really speaking of creation; we are really speaking of making a connection. Making a connection between different parts of The Object. The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we don’t really make the connection; the connection was always there too. We just discover what is already there. In other words, we just become aware of it. So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just
Re: The Object
Yes, this discussion is, as the saying goes, above my pay grade but I do it to please (neurobiologically) my amygdala, and satisfy my cerebrum. Since I am stealing and modifying Eric Steinhart's theories on the Universe(s), consciousness, Leibniz, existence, and all the rest, I would say that God, as Mind, evolved from the simplest possible mind (arithmetic??) and spawned more and greater versions of himself/herself, all the while carrying along the previous iterations, as what physician called a veriform appendix to refer to, the simpler versions being a look-up table. I make these imbecilic statements because I suspect they are fact. Steinhart has speculated that each subsequent God/Mind has a universe within it. Where he gets this, I don't remember, but I somehow, like it. To paraphrase the old American rock song, Be true to your God, just like you would to your girl! Steinhart uses his background in computer science to formulate his philosophy, since more and more, as physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians, start identifying analogies in nature, that we discover in computer science. He is big on Plato and Plotinus, as well as our old friend Nietszche, John Leslie, Liebniz again, etc. So your Platonic otherworld is, a subset of a big computer system. Where'd it come from? It evolved. How'd it evolve? Probably a program. Who programmed these sets to evolve? I don't know. Steinhart can sometimes espouse some kind of mathematical polytheism. I am not sure that I do. Benefits? It provides for a certitude of an afterlife, though his Revision theory of Resurrection, is all about improved universes with improved clones.Clones are likely via Everett's MWI, and Lewis's Modal realism. Not interesting for me. His Promotion theory solves this but using the under-floor of reality as computation,programs, axioms, arithmetic,processes. Information gets transferred to a better environment via pipelines, and Promoted. What makes these other universes better? Well, the operating system of these other domains have more evolved minds running the place, plus, depending on how time works, our ancestors and our descendents. Input-Processing-Output. Pipelines move our old minds into, wherever? Problems? It could all be useless dreck, and it's a complex and nuanced view. It is logical, but rational? It sort of works for me and all I am doing is modifying such thinking, on the fly, as we say in the states. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 6, 2015 5:18 am Subject: Re: The Object On 04 Apr 2015, at 19:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: My view is that rather than being a simulation, our universe and an infinitude of others,are programs that yields physical universes, as a programmatic process. ? That seems contradictory. Being a simulation means being brought by a program implemented in some universal number relation (physically realized or not, at first). The underlying software and hardware are more real than the reality we sense, OK, so we can take the simplest one: elementary arithmetic, for example. but our lives are very real. In the case above, our lives are very epistemologically, or phenomenologically real. Underneath everything is organized data, programs, processes, and pipelines to other universes (or parts of a greater very big universe). This is like using a God in an explanation. Why to introduce a universe to make programs and program execution, when we know that already exists once we assume elementary arithmetic? (with some measure that we can test so that we can test the hypothesis). So theoretically, humans and galaxies and bacteria, get promoted (as in software) to other places. I am stealing from Eric Steinhart's Promotion hypothesis, to suit my own pitiful intellect, and emotions. It is OK, but you don't need universes, still less other bigger universe. The whole of real math and physics use a tiny amount of arithmetical truth. Only logicians, category theorists and theologian needs sometimes to refer to the big one, the whole of the arithmetical reality, that we cannot even define from inside. That is *very* big. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 11:10 am Subject: Re: The Object Nice! Quite Platonist! We never invent anything---we always only discover. would assess a platonist. Bruno
Re: The Object
Nice! Quite Platonist! We never invent anything---we always only discover. would assess a platonist. Bruno On 07 Jan 2015, at 23:54, Jason Resch wrote: From Douglas Jone's short story ( http://frombob.to/you/ aconvers.html ): But suppose it were possible to create physical universes like yours within an appropriately specified computational universe. What could you say about the origin of the universe then? Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers are equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation within any one computational universe, then there are an infinite number of computational universes in which this computation is performed. If you were to try to follow the chain of causality back past the origin of your physical universe, you would find an infinite number of causes. These are all deep, deep questions. We have been thinking about them, and doing experiments, for a very long time. Our mathematicians have proven certain things... I’m sorry, I have to be very careful about what I say here. There is the very real possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say too much. So let me say some vague things: There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain properties. For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general agreement on what the best name for this object is, so for the sake of convenience, let’s just call it The Object. Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is every universe that can possibly exist. And everything else that can exist, whether or not you would call it a universe. All of Mathematics is inside that Object. And the various parts of that Object are somehow connected together. We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the properties of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it. As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything. And exploring the nature of the connections between the various parts of The Object is the most fundamental kind of exploration there is. And some of the most interesting kinds of connections are related to Consciousness. The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no beginning and no end; it simply Is. It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you live in one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal too. The Time within them is visible only from a particular point of view. Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of creating a physical universe, or of creating anything, we are not really speaking of creation; we are really speaking of making a connection. Making a connection between different parts of The Object. The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we don’t really make the connection; the connection was always there too. We just discover what is already there. In other words, we just become aware of it. So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just a vanity of the ego, which exists within Time. Everything is already there, within The Object. B: What do you mean, the Afterlife? Apparently, each of us gets an infinite number of different ones, simultaneously. And this doesn’t just happen when you die. It happens to you all the time. In the last five minutes, you have split into an uncountable number of different versions of yourself, each one in a different universe. And some of those versions of yourself have found themselves in universes that are very different from the one you all shared just over five minutes ago. Just because you don’t recall ever experiencing a discontinuity that big, doesn’t mean that it never happens to you. The Object contains all possible computational universes, with all possible initial conditions. So there are an infinite number of computational universes which contain, as part of their initial conditions, You as you exist at this precise instant. And this instant too. And all of the other instants of your life. And in precisely zero percent of those universes, which is to say an infinite number of them, you will find yourself in a world like the one I live in, the Realm of Possibilities. Where you will have freedom, and infinite choices, and immortality. Where you can visit worlds of invention, and live innumerable lives. Where you can follow, for a time, the paths of other Souls. Of course, in the vast majority of those universes, you will find yourself completely alone. But nevertheless, it can be shown that there are an infinite number of universes that will also contain all of your friends and loved ones. Even the ones who are already dead in your world. And we can take this even further. It can be shown that there exist an infinite number of universes
Re: The Object
My view is that rather than being a simulation, our universe and an infinitude of others,are programs that yields physical universes, as a programmatic process. The underlying software and hardware are more real than the reality we sense, but our lives are very real. Underneath everything is organized data, programs, processes, and pipelines to other universes (or parts of a greater very big universe). So theoretically, humans and galaxies and bacteria, get promoted (as in software) to other places. I am stealing from Eric Steinhart's Promotion hypothesis, to suit my own pitiful intellect, and emotions. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 11:10 am Subject: Re: The Object Nice! Quite Platonist! We never invent anything---we always only discover. would assess a platonist. Bruno On 07 Jan 2015, at 23:54, Jason Resch wrote: From Douglas Jone's short story ( http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html ): But suppose it were possible to create physical universes like yours within an appropriately specified computational universe. What could you say about the origin of the universe then? Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers are equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation within any one computational universe, then there are an infinite number of computational universes in which this computation is performed. If you were to try to follow the chain of causality back past the origin of your physical universe, you would find an infinite number of causes. These are all deep, deep questions. We have been thinking about them, and doing experiments, for a very long time. Our mathematicians have proven certain things... I’m sorry, I have to be very careful about what I say here. There is the very real possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say too much. So let me say some vague things: There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain properties. For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general agreement on what the best name for this object is, so for the sake of convenience, let’s just call it The Object. Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is every universe that can possibly exist. And everything else that can exist, whether or not you would call it a universe. All of Mathematics is inside that Object. And the various parts of that Object are somehow connected together. We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the properties of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it. As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything. And exploring the nature of the connections between the various parts of The Object is the most fundamental kind of exploration there is. And some of the most interesting kinds of connections are related to Consciousness. The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no beginning and no end; it simply Is. It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you live in one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal too. The Time within them is visible only from a particular point of view. Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of creating a physical universe, or of creating anything, we are not really speaking of creation; we are really speaking of making a connection. Making a connection between different parts of The Object. The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we don’t really make the connection; the connection was always there too. We just discover what is already there. In other words, we just become aware of it. So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just a vanity of the ego, which exists within Time. Everything is already there, within The Object. B: What do you mean, the Afterlife? Apparently, each of us gets an infinite number of different ones, simultaneously. And this doesn’t just happen when you die. It happens to you all the time. In the last five minutes, you have split into an uncountable number of different versions of yourself, each one in a different universe. And some of those versions of yourself have found themselves in universes that are very different from the one you all shared just over five minutes ago. Just because you don’t recall ever experiencing a discontinuity that big, doesn’t mean that it never happens to you. The Object contains all possible computational universes, with all possible initial conditions
The Object
From Douglas Jone's short story ( http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html ): But suppose it *were* possible to create physical universes like yours within an appropriately specified computational universe. What could you say about the origin of the universe then? Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers are equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation within any * one *computational universe, then there are an* infinite* number of computational universes in which this computation is performed. If you were to try to follow the chain of causality back past the origin of your physical universe, you would find an infinite number of causes. These are all *deep, deep* questions. We have been thinking about them, and doing experiments, for a very long time. Our mathematicians have *proven* certain things... I’m sorry, I have to be very careful about what I say here. There is the very real possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say too much. So let me say some vague things: There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain properties. For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general agreement on what the best name for this object is, so for the sake of convenience, let’s just call it The Object. Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is *every universe that can possibly exist.* And everything else that can exist, whether or not you would call it a universe. All of Mathematics is inside that Object. And the various parts of that Object are somehow connected together. We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the properties of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it. As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything. And exploring the nature of the connections between the various parts of The Object is the most fundamental kind of exploration there is. And some of the most interesting kinds of connections are related to *Consciousness.* The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no beginning and no end; it simply *Is*. It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you live in one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal too. The Time within them is visible only from a particular point of view. Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of creating a physical universe, or of creating *anything*, we are not really speaking of *creation*; we are really speaking of *making a connection*. Making a connection between different parts of The Object. The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we don’t really make the connection; the connection was always there too. We just *discover what is already there*. In other words, we just *become aware of it*. So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just a vanity of the ego, which exists within Time. Everything is already there, within The Object. *B: *What do you mean, *the *Afterlife? Apparently, each of us gets an infinite number of different ones, simultaneously. And this doesn’t just happen when you die. It happens to you all the time. In the last five minutes, you have split into an uncountable number of different versions of yourself, each one in a different universe. And some of those versions of yourself have found themselves in universes that are very different from the one you all shared just over five minutes ago. Just because you don’t recall ever experiencing a discontinuity that big, doesn’t mean that it never happens to you. The Object contains all possible computational universes, with all possible initial conditions. So there are an infinite number of computational universes which contain, as part of their initial conditions, *You *as you exist at this precise instant. And this instant too. And all of the other instants of your life. And in precisely zero percent of those universes, which is to say an infinite number of them, you will find yourself in a world like the one I live in, the Realm of Possibilities. Where you will have freedom, and infinite choices, and immortality. Where you can visit worlds of invention, and live innumerable lives. Where you can follow, for a time, the paths of other Souls. Of course, in the vast majority of those universes, you will find yourself completely alone. But nevertheless, it can be shown that there are an infinite number of universes that will also contain all of your friends and loved ones. Even the ones who are already dead in your world. And we can take this even further. It can be shown that there exist an infinite number of universes that each contain almost *Everyone!* You see, The Object contains the *Continuum of Souls. *It is a connected set, with a frothy, fractal structure, of rather high dimensionality. The Continuum contains an infinite number of Souls, *all* Souls in fact
Re: The Object
yeah - this is a really original and very intelligent short story that explores the event of an civilization on the rise, that is connected by a more advanced civilization, but that sadly went the wrong way about 50-100 years before, effectively destroying its robust knowledge and societies, for certain, but delayed due to the enormous prosperity and energy surplus built by their ancestors, while that stockpile of 'fat' was burned to keep everything running. And still in that period, with a few decades left to run, when contact was made with that less advanced civilization, but still going strong, still going the right way. How does the less advanced civilization possibly survive something like that? Great story. Lot's of food for thought relative to everything real in our lives in our time. Good story. Well spotted...you have an eye for quality over commonplace flap. On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:54:16 PM UTC, Jason wrote: From Douglas Jone's short story ( http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html ): But suppose it *were* possible to create physical universes like yours within an appropriately specified computational universe. What could you say about the origin of the universe then? Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers are equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation within any * one *computational universe, then there are an* infinite* number of computational universes in which this computation is performed. If you were to try to follow the chain of causality back past the origin of your physical universe, you would find an infinite number of causes. These are all *deep, deep* questions. We have been thinking about them, and doing experiments, for a very long time. Our mathematicians have *proven* certain things... I’m sorry, I have to be very careful about what I say here. There is the very real possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say too much. So let me say some vague things: There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain properties. For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general agreement on what the best name for this object is, so for the sake of convenience, let’s just call it The Object. Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is *every universe that can possibly exist.* And everything else that can exist, whether or not you would call it a universe. All of Mathematics is inside that Object. And the various parts of that Object are somehow connected together. We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the properties of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it. As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything. And exploring the nature of the connections between the various parts of The Object is the most fundamental kind of exploration there is. And some of the most interesting kinds of connections are related to *Consciousness.* The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no beginning and no end; it simply *Is*. It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you live in one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal too. The Time within them is visible only from a particular point of view. Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of creating a physical universe, or of creating *anything*, we are not really speaking of *creation*; we are really speaking of *making a connection*. Making a connection between different parts of The Object. The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we don’t really make the connection; the connection was always there too. We just *discover what is already there*. In other words, we just *become aware of it*. So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just a vanity of the ego, which exists within Time. Everything is already there, within The Object. *B: *What do you mean, *the *Afterlife? Apparently, each of us gets an infinite number of different ones, simultaneously. And this doesn’t just happen when you die. It happens to you all the time. In the last five minutes, you have split into an uncountable number of different versions of yourself, each one in a different universe. And some of those versions of yourself have found themselves in universes that are very different from the one you all shared just over five minutes ago. Just because you don’t recall ever experiencing a discontinuity that big, doesn’t mean that it never happens to you. The Object contains all possible computational universes, with all possible initial conditions. So there are an infinite number of computational universes which contain, as part of their initial conditions, *You *as you exist at this precise instant. And this instant too. And all
Re: New study confirms importance of astrocytes a type of glial cells in the formation of object memories.
For those interested in new developments in brain science. In a study published July 28 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Salk Institute for Biological Sciences researchers have found that brain cells called astrocytes — not neurons — can control the brain’s gamma waves. Abstract from PNAS paper Glial cells are an integral part of functional communication in the brain. Here we show that astrocytes contribute to the fast dynamics of neural circuits that underlie normal cognitive behaviors. In particular, we found that the selective expression of tetanus neurotoxin (TeNT) in astrocytes significantly reduced the duration of carbachol-induced gamma oscillations in hippocampal slices. These data prompted us to develop a novel transgenic mouse model, specifically with inducible tetanus toxin expression in astrocytes. In this in vivo model, we found evidence of a marked decrease in electroencephalographic (EEG) power in the gamma frequency range in awake-behaving mice, whereas neuronal synaptic activity remained intact. The reduction in cortical gamma oscillations was accompanied by impaired behavioral performance in the novel object recognition test, whereas other forms of memory, including working memory and fear conditioning, remainedunchanged. These results support a key role for gamma oscillations in recognition memory. Both EEG alterations and behavioral deficits in novel object recognition were reversed by suppression of tetanus toxin expression. These data reveal an unexpected role for astrocytes as essential contributors to information processing and cognitive behavior. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
Hi spudboy, Oops I miss this post, sorry. On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Consider that you are dreaming. In the dream you see the sea, and the sky, and some clouds, and you think that those things are out there. But there is a clear sense that they are not out there OK? When you wake up, you realize it was, in some sense, all in your head. With comp, this is generalized in some way. There is only the true arithmetical propositions, like the machine i output j to the machine k after n steps of the machine g, for example. By the FPI, the consciousness flux differentiates on all arithmetical realization supporting your current life scenario, and apparently some of those dreams can be shared by collection of machines. But despite this, what truly is, is just the number theoretical truth. We can't see that because we are dreamed by them, and like in the dream above, we see many things outside us, but that notion of outside us is part of the dream. It is like in Matrix, except that there is a superposition (by the FPI) of infinitely many matrices, and they interfere below our substitution level. I hope this can help, I am currently explaining the math on the FOAR list, in case you are interested. Bruno Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
Much thanks, Dr. Marchal. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:30 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi spudboy, Oops I miss this post, sorry. On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Consider that you are dreaming. In the dream you see the sea, and the sky, and some clouds, and you think that those things are out there. But there is a clear sense that they are not out there OK? When you wake up, you realize it was, in some sense, all in your head. With comp, this is generalized in some way. There is only the true arithmetical propositions, like the machine i output j to the machine k after n steps of the machine g, for example. By the FPI, the consciousness flux differentiates on all arithmetical realization supporting your current life scenario, and apparently some of those dreams can be shared by collection of machines. But despite this, what truly is, is just the number theoretical truth. We can't see that because we are dreamed by them, and like in the dream above, we see many things outside us, but that notion of outside us is part of the dream. It is like in Matrix, except that there is a superposition (by the FPI) of infinitely many matrices, and they interfere below our substitution level. I hope this can help, I am currently explaining the math on the FOAR list, in case you are interested. Bruno Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI onsciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then here's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness roblem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the ubject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve he mind/body problem. It's only the hard
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- 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
Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
That last phrase, Dr. Marchal is very difficult to grasp. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object On 23 Jun 2013, at 04:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Boltzann brain are relatively rare, and it is unclear how they are related to the universal system running it. But if you agree with 2+2 = 4, it is only a tedious long, and not so easy, yet standard, exercise to prove the existence of infinitely many Boltzmann brain and (all) other universal numbers in arithmetic, together with all finite initial segment of computations. We are distributed in there, and what you call physical reality has to emerge naturally from the statistical view from inside. Boltzmann brain, as physical object are still Aristotelian chimer, based on brain-mind identity thesis. All physical brains, notably, are the result of the statistical and arithmetical interference of all computations. I don't know if what is true, but that is testable, with a spectrum of variant according to the axiomatic of knowledge chosen. Others are there, but out there is not out there. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- 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
Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- 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: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object
I read Sarfatti's website, Stardrive.org, too, and I am not sure he does the Leibniz idealism as you do. He seems more attuned to whether the future, or future beings from the distant future, try to influence their past. He doesn't claim its people or our descendants, just that information is being written to the present. Which in itself is a mind bending concept. Beyond Sarfatti, is the question of Len Susskind's Boltzmann Brains. The physics described forced the creation of observers via temperature differentials, somehow, as the universe expanded. This somehow created observers, which sprang up out of no where, but had defined memories of the past and identities. It somehow reminds me of the monads you speak of, and because it is so jolly, science fictional, it appeals to me. Because my mind works this way, I have wondered if God was a Boltzmann Brain of sorts, mysterious, intelligent, etc, but was created with the Big Bang. Perhaps external to the Big Bang was something He did himself, and manifests now as a Boltzmann Brain? I also wonder if others are out there? Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: JACK SARFATTI adast...@me.com Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Why do you folks keep having conferences about consciousness ? Because you have erased the subject, And Cs. = subject + object Hi JACK SARFATTI Consciousness = subject + object = subjective world + objective world Nice physics, very erudite, but If there's no subject, then there's no consciousness. But if you include a subject, the consciousness problem is trivial. You don't to keep having conferences about the mystery of consciousness. It's only a mystery if you have lweft the subject out of the picture. Like it or not , Idealism is the only philosophy that takes mind seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and Leibniz was the only philosopher to rationally solve the mind/body problem. It's only the hard problem if, like Chalmers, you are a meterialist and subjectivity is not in your vocabulary. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: JACK SARFATTI Receiver: Kim Burrafato Time: 2013-06-21, 23:17:54 Subject: Fwd: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication In this Ph.D. thesis, I investigate the communication abilities of non-inertial observers and the precision to which they can measure parametrized states. I introduce relativistic quantum field theory with field quantisation, and the definition and transformations of mode functions in Minkowski, Schwarzschild and Rindler spaces. I introduce information theory by discussing the nature of information, defining the entropic information measures, and highlighting the differences between classical and quantum information. I review the field of relativistic quantum information. We investigate the communication abilities of an inertial observer to a relativistic observer hovering above a Schwarzschild black hole, using the Rindler approximation. Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Burrafato Subject: [1306.4853] Relativistic Quantum Communication Date: June 21, 2013 7:03:52 PM PDT To: Jack Sarfatti http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4853 -- 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms). Trivially. Usually we prefer not see a definition as a condition, but logically you can do that. We prefer to say that 17 is prime, instead of if p-(q-p), if (p-(q- r))-(p-q) -(p-r)), if ..., and if s(x) is different from 0 for all x, and if x = y when s(x) = s(y), and if if x + 0 = x, and if x +s(y) = s(x+y), and if x * 0 = 0, and ..., and ... then 17 is prime. We assume we are OK on the prerequisite. And it is not such a simple truth. Two raindrops plus two raindrops makes one big raindrop. Raindrop and clouds are bad model for what we mean by natural numbers. Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that. --Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2 raindrops. FAIL. One bridge teams plus one bridge teams equals three bridge teams. The simplicity of the truth comes from abstracting away all the particulars of reality. So people are agreeing about words and definitions and meanings - but not about facts. That is why I am a theoretician. Notably. I say that if comp is true, then physics is given by this theory. Facts confirms, but I let to talented experimenters to decide or refute it in fine. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/21/2012 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that. --Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2 raindrops. FAIL. No, because GR comes with an interpretation and that has been tested. And in fact the 2 is irrelevant. c is just a scale factor from the way we defined units and physicist commonly set it to 1. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. Brent Hi Brent, You have written the magic words! ... if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true. This is exactly what I am talking about with my banter about truth obtaining from agreements between mutually communicating observers. We remove the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of large numbers at work. ;-) OK for politics, but not for science. That would be worst than solipsism, that would be nationalism, that is collective solipsism. In science all argument per authority are invalid, and to invoke majority would be the best way to kill the possibility of progress. history shows that in science, very often, those who are right are a minority for some period, which is normal in front of the unknown. We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. If we take this finite number to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about measures that are relative to agreements in populations of entities and must be capable of comprehending that simple fact. Granting ourselves imaginary powers of omniscience or to some imaginary Platonic proxy does not change anything when we are considering the degeneracy of the very idea of a measure in the case of infinities. Measure theory has been invented to define measure on all kinds of sets, especially infinite one. (Riemann measure, Lebesgues, etc.). 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? That is why they are towers, yes. But even the union of tower remains incomplete, unless the extension are done in an effective way, in which case we build more models than theories in the usual sense. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. You mean: unless you are a mechanist. Platonism in the greek sense is a consequence. And arithmetical realism is what you need to understand the mathematical notion of computation, Church thesis, etc. Not mathematical platonism. Bruno Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms). And it is not such a simple truth. Two raindrops plus two raindrops makes one big raindrop. One bridge teams plus one bridge teams equals three bridge teams. The simplicity of the truth comes from abstracting away all the particulars of reality. So people are agreeing about words and definitions and meanings - but not about facts. 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi meekerdb Can be is not the same as is. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 14:30:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/20/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Dec 2012, at 22:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. Brent Hi Brent, You have written the magic words! ... if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true. This is exactly what I am talking about with my banter about truth obtaining from agreements between mutually communicating observers. We remove the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of large numbers at work. ;-) OK for politics, but not for science. That would be worst than solipsism, that would be nationalism, that is collective solipsism. Dear Bruno, Could you stop with your anthropocentric bias for once in your life? Everyone, as I used the word, about is not just human beings. Yes, it is collective solipsism. It has a name: Multisolipsism. It is we we consider all entities that are capable of being defined as having a 1p and that are capable of communication with each other. This includes, for instance, every electron, every quark, every proton, every atom, every molecule, every animal, every planet, every solar system, every galaxy, ... any entity capable of having a 1p and that their individual 1p includes aspects that are bisimilar to aspects of the 1p of others. What you need to understand is that the mereology of the systems that can have a 1p cannot be confined to a unique partition of some irreducible set of primitives in a regular or well founded way. You need to understand the statistical implication of non-well foundedness! The nationalist allegiance here, to use your strange metaphor, would be to the Reality that all of them - the entities with 1p - participate in. Did you notice the huge number of entities that have to be considered, in my discussion with LizR? As it stands, we need to consider at least 10^23 entities just to take into account smallish phenomena at our human level, because that is the average number of entities that are at our level of substitution as an ensemble of equivalence. This is well known in chemistry and engineering... In science all argument per authority are invalid, and to invoke majority would be the best way to kill the possibility of progress. history shows that in science, very often, those who are right are a minority for some period, which is normal in front of the unknown. Rubbish, you are being a hypocrite, invoking that truth from authority crap. I am a minority of one here. So my minority status beats your minority status every day all day. Do we really need to go there and act like children? You really should take a class on statistic taught by an engineer and not a cloistered academic mathematician. I am merely trying to make the principles of COMP useful to an engineer, because, as I have been explaining to LizR, I see a use for comp. We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. Sure, and those people don't notice that the universe is not everything that I can see with my eyes, touch with my hands, hear with my ears, smell with my nose, etc. The universe is far far more than we can distinguish at our level of substitution which is a function of our very coarse measurements. I am considering way more than people. I am considering any and every entity with a 1p. If you believe that only people have a 1p, then well 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. If we take this finite number to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about measures that are relative to agreements in populations
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/20/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? That is why they are towers, yes. But even the union of tower remains incomplete, unless the extension are done in an effective way, in which case we build more models than theories in the usual sense. Bruno Dear Bruno, At some level, do models and theories converge? -- 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120, known as the Lloyd limit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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. -- 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: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Richard Ruquist That's the usual response, but why does information have to be associated with extended objects ? One could store such information mentally. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:47:55 Subject: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120, known as the Lloyd limit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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. -- 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 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. But that can have some uses in natural language studies, but be misleading in the ideal case needed fro physics. In particular it is important to understand that PA + PA is inconsistent is a consistent theory. Indeed if from PA + PA is inconsistent you can get a contradiction in PA, then you have prove correctly, by absurdum, the consistency of PA in PA, violating the second incompleteness theorem. Dt - ~BDt is equivalent with Dt - DBf. Bruno Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 18 Dec 2012, at 01:50, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
I tried to identify the meaning of axiom and found a funny solution: as it looks, AXIOM is an unprovable idea underlining a theory otherwise non-provable. In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in the contest of the particular theory it is serving. Better definitions?? John M On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin It seems like just defining a new predicate accessible which means provable or disprovable which you attach to propositions. Then it doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle. 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. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, which is rather close. Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger than 13.7 billion light-years? And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. Richard [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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 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 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, which is rather close. They would be the same except that the expansion rate has not been constant (it has been slightly increasing). Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger than 13.7 billion light-years? I don't understand the significance of 200Myrs? The CMB isn't going to disappear, ever. It's just going to be more and more redshifted by the expansion of the universe. There's an excellent tutorial on these questions by Ned Wright at UCLA http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. I don't know where 10^124 comes from, but 10^120 is what I get for the holographic limit. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. Indeed. But for arithmetic (or Turing equivalent), The Truth = true in the standard model (learned in high school). But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? It is long and has to be defined by induction on the complexity of formula. Like ExP(x) is true if it exists a n such that P(n), etc. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? Well the most famous example is provable 0=1. This is not provably false (as PA cannot prove ~Bf), but is false in the standard model. That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. or ~Bf But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Some are, some are not. Bf is not provable and false. Dt is not provable and true. All arithmetical interpretation of any formula of G* minus G are true but not provable. Their negations are false and not provable. Bruno Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Congrats to the perfect definition. Add to it (my) agnostic position that we know only part of everything and nobody will talk truth. To Brent: about FACTS? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model related (partially understood). JM On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin It seems like just defining a new predicate accessible which means provable or disprovable which you attach to propositions. Then it doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 8:47 AM, John Mikes wrote: To Brent: about FACTS? the facts we see(?) are similarly only model related (partially understood). That's true. Being a 'fact' is a matter of degree and in practice all 'facts' are theory laden. Even a fact like, I am experiencing seeing a chair. assumes you are sane enough to correctly introspect and formulate your experience in that sentence. But that said, some things are much more fact-like than others and have much less theory attached than others. In terms science I just use 'fact' to mean those direct observations that almost everyone can agree on, aka 'data'. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/18/2012 3:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/18/2012 10:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 12:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:51 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. What do you mean ? that provable true is truer ? No, just that there must be propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable. Brent -- Hi Brent, How do we defend such propositions we judge to be true that aren't provable from claims of subjectivity? Of course being provable does eliminate subjectivity - it just pushes it back to the axioms. Generally what we mean by objective is that there is almost universal subjective agreement, e.g. given any number x there is a successor of x not equal to x. So if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true, then it's as 'objective' as the axioms and as 'objective' as anything proven from the axioms even though it is not provable from them. Brent Hi Brent, You have written the magic words! ... if there is some proposition of arithmetic that everyone agrees must be true. This is exactly what I am talking about with my banter about truth obtaining from agreements between mutually communicating observers. We remove the subjectivity of the individual by spreading it out over many individuals. When we have many individuals in agreement, the disagreement by one of them is inconsequential. This is the laws of large numbers at work. ;-) We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. If we take this finite number to be infinite then things change; we are not able to take about measures that are relative to agreements in populations of entities and must be capable of comprehending that simple fact. Granting ourselves imaginary powers of omniscience or to some imaginary Platonic proxy does not change anything when we are considering the degeneracy of the very idea of a measure in the case of infinities. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth- about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? That just consistent. True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
2012/12/17 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. Quentin True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
2012/12/18 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each
Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Bruno Marchal Arithmetic truth ? Perhaps to a mathematician, and it might be useful along the way, but as a pragmatist, and a human being, I submit that the only truth that we can use is one whose meaning we correctly understand. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Arithmetic truth ? Perhaps to a mathematician, and it might be useful along the way, but as a pragmatist, and a human being, I submit that the only truth that we can use is one whose meaning we correctly understand. OK? Then it is only on arithmetic that all scientists clearly agree on, and would say without anxiousness, we can correctly understand. Beyond arithmetic philosophy/theology begins. With the CTM, that beyond arithmetic is an inside arithmetic view of the numbers, which cannot avoid it if they want to grasp themselves. (a bit like Riemann needed the complex numbers to study the distribution of the primes natural numbers). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 05:31:15 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. With the CTM that might make sense, but a priori this is not obvious. 2) Words are man-made objects. No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. That does not follow. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, i.e. not provably false? 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.
the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Bruno Marchal 1) If there is an ultimate truth, the only one we can understand is in words. 2) Words are man-made objects. 3) Therefore the only truth we can understand is a man-made object. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 12:46:56 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each monad is real and nothing else (physical things aren't real). This is coherent with identifying the monads with the numbers, at least when coupled with some universal number (they become programs relatively to that universal number/supreme monad). And there being an infinitely different set of monads, each of which keeps changing, there are an infinite set (actually, a dust) of continually changing reals, each real being a substance of one part. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo
it takes two to tango. awareness = subject + object
Hi meekerdb This is not rocket science. To be aware you must have both subject and object: awareness = subject + object Neither materialism nor science can provide a subject, since a subject must be subjective. So neither one will permit awareness. Start studying the mnonadology. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 19:15:57 Subject: Re: intuition On 8/22/2012 1:04 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent Meeker wrote on list: Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you aren't aware of any preceding thought process leading to it. According to (you?) computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is intuition. Brent Dear Brent, to 'your' part: is an urge to find some solution one of your thought processes? In speculation you may not realize the train of thoughts leading to whatever is popping up as a solution. It may happen even WITHOUT the urgency I mentioned. Let us say: Just an 'idea' pops up - it may be called intuition. If you are ordered, you may assign it to problems that occupied your mind lately. To 'computers': whenever a computer produces a result it is algorithmically based on data IN the hardware/software (you may call it the 'awareness of the computer.) Simply because it is in the hardware/software doesn't mean the computer is aware of it, any more than the fact that a thought is formulated in your brain means you are aware of it. It is the popping up that describes the thought's fully formed appearance in consciousness. This requires a certain reflexive capability that we do not bother to include it in the software of most computers because they don't need it. I think evolution has provided us this reflexive capability as a useful adjunct to language and learning. It allows us to succinctly summarize inferences for their future application and to share our reasoning with others. I think we could provide this kind of awareness to robots that need to learn and act autonomously and to also be able to explain their actions. Someday we will probably build Martian rovers with such autonomy. We don't need the rover to explain it's decisions in terms of the binary switching of its CPU, we only need a 'top level' explanation communicated to us or other rovers. So we won't provide a trace of all the CPU states; only a summary that will appear in as the rovers 'intuition'. Of course if the rovers intuition proves to be faulty and it often runs into a ditch; then we will want to have a deeper record and analysis - just as we want to study the brain chemistry and structure of those who go insane. Brent Proper semantics of new (developing?) territories is of paramount importance. You are usually VERY clear on such: would your AI agree to such definition, added: a suiting ID for intuition as well? (I might have a hard time to identify intuition. The closest I may come up to NOW is: we may cut into peripheral 'shaving' into the limits of our knowledge (I call that creativity) and that may combine into existing questions as callable 'intuition'). JohnM -- 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 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.
The categories of subject, object, physical, nonphysical, nonlocal
Hi William R. Buckley Hwere's how I see it: 1. The object is the object of a subject, so is mostly a grammatical term. 2. The subject is the observer or doer and so is grammatical term. 3 The object can be either physical (such as metter) where it has extension in space or nonphysical (such as mind), where it is unextended (outside of spacetime). 4. Outside of spacetime means the entity has nonlocality. Hence telepathy, prayer, etc. are possible in some situations (where one has clearer less undistorted mental vision or intelligence). Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 12:01:38 Subject: RE: Why AI is impossible Roger: Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal. When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure. QED. The physical universe is purely subjective. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM To: everything-list Subject: Why AI is impossible Hi Evgenii Rudnyi This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry. Life is whatever can experience its surroundings, nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference. Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is selecting. So only life can have intelligence. Life is subjective, nonlife is objective. Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective, only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced. Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible, because only living items can experience the world.. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44 Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI ordescribing life On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following: On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following: The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent. The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research is about AI. What does intelligence means in this context that life is unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock. Where there is more intelligence? Evgenii Dear Evgenii, A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium. My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence? Evgenii -- 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 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 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.
Fwd: fundamentalists object to set theory
Surprisingly, Bruno might be invited to teach at Bob Jones University, :-) http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html Brent Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk --- Kronecker -- 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: Fwd: fundamentalists object to set theory
Really? I was born on the campus of BJU... my parents are alumi. It would be nice to be able to shake Bruno's hand, but it will have to be off campus as I am banned from stepping foot on Bob Jones Uni. property! But your not serious... On 8/9/2012 9:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: Surprisingly, Bruno might be invited to teach at Bob Jones University, :-) http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html Brent Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk --- Kronecker -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
What physical object am I?
I'm examining this question: if I'm a physical object, what object am I? We'll try two competing hypotheses: 1. I am a body. This hypothesis has massive descriptive complexity (Kolmogorov complexity), as we must trace its form in spacetime when we describe it. It has no clear boundaries in spacetime. It is not causally separate from its environment. However, if the mind, the cognitive process that rationalizes existence, doesn't look after the body, the body will die. 2. I am the universe. This hypothesis is simple and concise. It is a self-contained physical object. It is causally complete. I'd say the fact that the mind must take care of the body is contingent and should carry less weight to a materialist than more fundamental physical arguments like causality. But of course this is metaphysics :). Note that the physical processes that are responsible for cognition exist inside the body, but they exist just as equally inside the universe. The descriptive complexity of the universe can be questioned. What if the universe is part of some multiverse and doesn't exist as an independent physical object? Then we would need to decribe how it's a part of this multiverse, as we can't take a non-physical thing as a descriptional primitive, increasing the complexity. In that case we would simply carry the abstraction one step further and assume the hypothesis I am the multiverse, which is again simple. This process can be continued until only one object remains, I. To continue on a tangent, I believe the person to be a necessary mental model for survival, but serious thought should be given before it's turned from an unstable psychological identity to something more fundamental. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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.
