Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 12/30/2019 5:44 PM, George Levy wrote: On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: George, Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of energy i

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

firm answers to any of these thought experiments - just guesses. Do you know the answers? George -Original Message----- From: George Levy To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Hi everyone I do not post often, but now is an opportune

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

to a previous state /even in the presence of an arrow of time,/ thereby restoring its entropy to its original value. This version of the paradox renders moot the arrow of time assumption and bypasses the H-Theorem. The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental data.

Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

Thanks Bruno On 11/11/2015 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi George, Congratulations! Best wishes for you and your amazing work. I am not convinced but that might only be due to my incompetence in the field. I will make a further look. Bruno On 10 Nov 2015, at 23:10, George Levy wrote

Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

I would like to update the members of this list on what I have been up to recently (and revive an old thread). My latest paper "Quantum Game Beats Classical Odds - Thermodynamics Implications" has just been published by the Journal Entropy under the section "Statistical Mechanics" after a stric

Re: Kabbalah and the Multiverse

Hi John Thanks for your appreciation. John Mikes wrote: Dear George, I was missing more of your contributions on this list lately (years?). Let me reflect to a few of your topics: *Chaos.* A decade or so ago I was named 'resident chaotician' on another list - later changed my mind when I wa

Re: Kabbalah and the Multiverse

Dear Rabbi Rabbi Rabbit wrote: What is surprising about Abulafia is that he did not reach this state by suppressing his conscious mind, as most mystics do by repetition of a single formula/mantra, but by overstimulating it with letter combinations accompanied by body motions. Too much informa

Re: Kabbalah and the Multiverse

Hi Rabbi Rabbit. Welcome I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I have been reading it. Here is a possible connection between the Kabbalah and the Multiverse, which I will describe in a bulleted fashion for brevity. The initial chaos, "Tohu va Bohu," (from which the French word t

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

A good model of the naturalist math that Torgny is talking about is the overflow mechanism in computers. For example in a 64 bit machine you may define overflow for positive integers as 2^^64 -1. If negative integers are included then the biggest positive could be 2^^32-1. Torgny would also hav

Re: Consciousness is information?

Kelly Harmon wrote: > > What if you used a lookup table for only a single neuron in a computer > simulation of a brain? > Hi Kelly Zombie arguments involving look up tables are faulty because look up tables are not closed systems. They require someone to fill them up. To resolve these argument

Re: Changing the past by forgetting

I agree with Anna. In addition, it all depends on where you define the boundary of the self. Just the brain? Brain + body? Brain + body + immediate surrounding (prescription glasses being worn, automobile being driven, binoculars or computer being used) ? Brain + body + Whole causally connected

Re: Changing the past by forgetting

I agree with Anna. In addition, it all depends on where you define the boundary of the self. Just the brain? Brain + body? Brain + body + immediate surrounding (prescription glasses being worn, automobile being driven, binoculars or computer being used) ? Brain + body + Whole causally connected

Re: language, cloning and thought experiments

Jack, You say "Q_i (which is _your_ utility per unit measure for the observer i)." This is an oxymoron. How can observer i know or care what YOUR Q (Quality) is? How can this observer feel what it feels being you?. The only observer that matters in evaluating your Q is you as a self-observer.

Re: Measure Increases or Decreases? - Was adult vs. child

r point here is new to the list. > I have also been overwhelmed by the volume on this list. The idea is not to take more than you can chew. > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy wrote: > >> One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and corresponds >> to

Measure Increases or Decreases? - Was adult vs. child

Hi Jack Nice to see you again. The assumption that measure decreases continuously has been accepted too easily. This is, however, really the crux of the discussion. One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and corresponds to the increase in entropy occurring in everyday lif

Re: Probability

= 0.23. So according to B P{X} = 0.77. A does not see any of the crashes. So: P{X} as seen by A = 1.0 This last example illustrates how three different observers can see three different probabilities. George Levy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message bec

Re: RE : Re: Discussion of the MUH

Hi Brian As Russell said, we have been discussing this topic for at least a decade. We all respect each other. I am sure that Bruno did not mean harm when he made his comment. You bring up an interesting question: the relationship between Fuzzy logic and the MUH and you state that Fuzzy logic

Re: dark energy

Hal Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally alien or the English language is broken. George Hal Ruhl wrote: > Hi George: > > I see no "feeling" of anything in a Something. There is only an >

Re: dark energy

Hal, Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that motivates their behavior. Is this correct? George Hal Ruhl wrote: >Hi George: > >I see no mo

Re: dark energy

Hal Ruhl wrote: > > This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces > [meaningful questions] applied to it. What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces? George --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you ar

Re: dark energy

Hal, I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say: Something if incomplete will have to increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions which implies volition and therefore spirit; and on the other hand you say: There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on the part of the Some

Re: dark energy

Hi Hal, This topic interests me, but I find it difficult to go past the second sentence in your post. The phrase "Something is on a quest" carries a lot of baggage, in particular that "Something" has intention, purpose and motivation. Either we have to assume that this intention is produced b

Re: Are First Person prime?

t; between truth and reality. This is interesting per se, but imo a bit > out of topics, or premature (in current thread). Perhaps we will have > opportunity to debate on this, but I want make sure that what I am > explaining now does not depend on those possible relations (between >

Re: Are First Person prime?

e multiple uses of M refers to the same machine. I guess there may be cases where multiple machines can have access to the dame data. Same with statement 4 George Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 22-nov.-07, à 20:50, George Levy a écrit : Hi Bruno, I am reopening an old

Re: Are First Person prime?

One more question: can or should p be the observer? George George Levy wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found > very intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions. > > Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit : > &g

Re: Are First Person prime?

Hi Bruno, I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found very intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions. Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor

Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

A theory of everyting is sweeping the Physics community. The theory by Garrett Lisi is explained in this Wiki entry. A simulation of E8 can be found a the New Scientist.

Re: OM measure and universe size

Sorry the nice equation formats did not make it past the server. Anyone interested in the equations can find them at the associated wiki links. George Russell Standish wrote: >On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0700, George Levy wrote: > > >>Russel, >> >>W

Re: OM measure and universe size

derations) Now I have trouble relating these facts to your equation H = C + S or maybe to the differential version dH = dC + dS. What do you  think? Can we push this further? George Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 05:11:01PM -0700, George Levy wrote: Could we relate the

Re: What are the consequences of UD+ASSA?

cosmological principle for measure: that measure is independent of when or where the observer makes an observation. However, I thought that tying cosmic expansion to measure may be an interesting avenue of inquiry. George Levy Rolf Nelson wrote: >(Warning: This post assumes an familiarity w

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Sorry Bruno, no disrespect, I meant to type "Hi Bruno". George George Levy wrote: > Ho Bruno > > Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been > lumping together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and > an "objective

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

e objective world, being it number theoretical or >computer science theoretical, etc. >You point "3)" (see below) is quite relevant sure, > >Bruno > > >Le 08-oct.-07, à 05:10, George Levy a écrit : > > > >>Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Bruno Marchal wrote: > I think that Maudlin refers to the conjunction of the comp hyp and > supervenience, where consciousness is supposed to be linked (most of > the time in a sort of "real-time" way) to the *computational activity* > of the brain, and not to the history of any of the state o

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Oops: replace Newton's demon by Maxwell's demon. George George Levy wrote: > Hi Bruno, > Yes I am still on the list, barely trying to keep up, but I have been > very busy. Actually the ball was in my court and I was supposed to > answer to your last post to me about a ye

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

orry to (re)discover your post just now, with a label >saying that I have to answer it, but apparently I didn't. So here is >the answer, with a delay of about one year :( > > > >Le 08-oct.-06, à 08:00, George Levy wrote : > > > > >>Finally I read your fil

Re: Justifying the Theory of Everything

Hi Jason I have not contributed to the list for a while but your question interests me. I do not accept as primitive an independent mathematicalism/arithmetical realism. I think that math and logic are co-emergent with the consciousness of the observer. In addition physics is also co-emergent

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

> <>Brent meeker writes: >It could be argued that not even God could create a world in which there are >no accidents, >conflicts of interest, disappointments, and so on, at least not without >severely limiting >his creatures' freedom. However, it would have been possible for God to limit >th

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-oct.-06, à 21:54, George Levy a écrit : To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer who is also split, ? This is simple. The time/space/substrate/level of the observer must match the time/space/substrate/level of what he observes

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

David Nyman wrote: On Oct 9, 8:54 pm, George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer who is also split, in sync with the split consciousness, across time, space, substrate and level (a la Zelazny - Science Fiction writer). I

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 08-oct.-06, à 08:00, George Levy a écrit : Bruno, Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my computer. (The original at the Iridia web site http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf is not accessible

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Bruno, Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my computer. (The original at the Iridia web site http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf is not accessible anymore. I am not sure why.) In page TROIS -61 you describe an experience of cons

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

List members I scanned Maudlin's paper. Thank you Russell. As I suspected I found a few questionable passages: Page417: line 14: "So the spatial sequence of the troughs need not reflect their 'computational sequence'. We may so contrive that any sequence of address lie next to each other spa

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Oops. Read: IF (Input = 27098217872180483080234850309823740127) George George Levy wrote: Bruno, Stathis, Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that Maudlin is fallacious. A computer program

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

ct.-06, à 21:33, George Levy a écrit : Bruno, I looked on the web but could not find Maudlin's paper. Mmh... for those working in an institution affiliated to JSTOR, it is available here: http://www.jstor.org/view/0022362x/di973301/97p04115/0 I will search if s

Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

from convincing. George Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 03-oct.-06, à 06:56, George Levy a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote in explaining Maudlin's argument: "For any given precise running computation associated to some inner experience, you can modify the device in such

Maudlin's argument

Bruno Marchal wrote in explaining Maudlin's argument: "For any given precise running computation associated to some inner experience, you can modify the device in such a way that the amount of physical activity involved is arbitrarily low, and even null for dreaming experience which has no inp

Re: Solipsism unplugged

The scientist could prove that he is not alone by invoking the principle of sufficient reason: nothing is arbitrary and exist with no reason. If something exists in a particular arbitrary way (himself) with no reason for him to be in that particular way, then all other alternatives of him must

It's a mad mad mad world (was computationalism and supervenience)]

Slight correction: If you are sane then you're not sure that you are sane, then you would have to be crazy to say "Yes Doctor.".. ...yet a man could say it but not a "sane" machine. Bruno's quest based on machine psychology runs the risk of leaving unanswered the really

It's a mad mad mad world (was computationalism and supervenience)

If you're not sure that you are sane, then you must be crazy to say "Yes Doctor.".. ...yet a man could say it but not a "sane" machine. Bruno's quest based on machine psychology runs the risk of leaving unanswered the really big quest based on human psychology. George B

Re: I think, was "Difficulties in communication. . ."

that "to chase one's brain". I am also happy that you use "sane" instead of "normal" because the "norm" is insane. Please do not cut this line (style) of yours! John Mikes --- George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruno Marchal wro

Re: I think, was "Difficulties in communication. . ."

Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-août-06, à 23:48, George Levy a écrit : "I think" also implies the concept of sanity. Unless you assume the first step "I think" and that you are sane, you can't take any rational and conscious second step and have any ratio

Re: I think, was "Difficulties in communication. . ."

Brent Meeker wrote: George Levy wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: George Levy wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell pointed out was an u

Re: I think, was "Difficulties in communication. . ."

Brent Meeker wrote: George Levy wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell pointed out was an unsupported inference. IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I th

I think, was "Difficulties in communication. . ."

Brent Meeker wrote: >That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell >pointed out was an unsupported inference. > > IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I think" MUST BE THE STARTING POINT - for any conscious observer THERE IS NO OTHER OBSERVABLE STARTING POINT!

Re: Are First Person prime? - time

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno, I spent some (!) time on speculating on 'timelessness' - Let me tell up front: I did not solve it. Hi John For example, we can conceive of a consciousness generated by a computer operating in a time share mode where the time share occur every thousand years.

Re: Are First Person prime?

David Nyman wrote: George Levy wrote: Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only relevent contingency is: If the observed event will result in different probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing me, then our perceptions will be different

Re: Are First Person prime?

David Nyman wrote: Third person perception comes about when several observers share the same perception because they share the same environmental contingencies on their existence. In effect these observers share the same "frame of reference." I see many similarities with relativity theo

Re: Are First Person prime?

David Nyman wrote: George Levy wrote: Thus first person perception of the world comes about when our own existence is contingent on our observation. Hi George I think I agree with this. It could correspond with what I'm trying to model in terms of FP1 etc. Perha

Re: Are First Person prime?

1Z wrote: I don't even know what you mean by "first person". David Nyman wrote: Peter It's a bit late in the day perhaps to tell me you 'don't even know what I mean by first person'! However, I'll have another go. I'm concerned to distinguish two basic meanings, which fail

Re: Are First Person prime?

1Z wrote: George Levy wrote: A conscious entity is also information. I am assuming here that a conscious entity is essentially "software." George --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscri

Re: Are First Person prime?

Bruno Marchal wrote: Would it be possible to map your three axiomatic lines replacing "knowable" by "think" and "true" by "exist." ... See my conversation with 1Z (Peter D. Jones). I will define "exist" by " "exist" is true". Then we have: 1 If p thinks then p exists;

Re: Are First Person prime?

ntails q" reminds me vaguely of the Anthropic principle. I am not sure what to make of this. My children think???) George Levy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything L

Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

Hi Bruno Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the pollution problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve the same problem by preparing vegetarian meals. As a mathematician you are trying

Re: Theory of Nothing available

Russell Congratulation on your book. I intend to buy the hard copy. I can't wait to read it! George Russell Standish wrote: >I'm pleased to announce that my book "Theory of Nothing" is now for >sale through Booksurge and Amazon.com. If you go to the Booksurge >website (http://www.booksurge.c

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Stephen Paul King wrote: >little discussion has >been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or >fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? > > Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can point you to is

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

ne. And here again specifying the frame of reference is important to avoid confusion. George Levy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send emai

Re: Symmetry, Invarance and Conservation

nalization and self referentiality and consciousness... (forgive me if I have missed something in his argument)   "The message needs no medium!" Marshall McLuhan got it all wrong! :-) George Levy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message be

Symmetry, Invarance and Conservation (Was Number and function for non-mathematician)

eeds no medium!" Marshall McLuhan got it all wrong! :-) George Levy Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 05-juil.-06, à 20:36, George Levy a écrit : My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has to do with terminolo

Re: Number and function for non-mathematician

Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Norman, Le 20-juin-06, à 04:04, Norman Samish a écrit : I've endured this thread long enough!  Let's get back to something I can understand! My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do share some of Norman misgivings

Re: A calculus of personal identity

Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 23-juin-06, à 07:29, George Levy a écrit : In Bruno's calculus what are the invariances? (Comment on Tom Caylor's post) Logicians, traditionally, are interested in deduction invariant with respect of the interpretation. A typica

Re: A calculus of personal identity

Lee Corbin wrote: >I find that the 1st person accounts to be pretty subjective, >actually. They also lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary >differences of opinion. > Interestingly the geocentric Aristotelian system was replaced by the heliocentric Copernican system. Then Relativity and Quantu

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: Since information is observer-dependent (Shannon) this issue brings us back to the observer. I think that eventually all observables will have to be traced back to the observer who is in fact at the nexus of the mind-body problem. [SPK]

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Hi Lee, Lee Corbin wrote: George writes Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain the physics and the objects. This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for the

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: >Dear Quentin et al, > >I keep reading this claim that "only the existence of the algorithm >itself is necessary" and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for >mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation >in terms

Re: *THE* PUZZLE (was: ascension, Smullyan, ...)

Bruno Marchal wrote: >Proceeding that way you will run into trouble. But it is very easy to >find the k. >Let us be specific and let us imagine you have already written in >Fortran a generator of all programs of the one-variable partial >computable functions: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 ... >The list

Re: *THE* PUZZLE (was: ascension, Smullyan, ...)

I went on a 10 day trip during which I had no access to email... a lot has happened on this list since then. Bruno Marchal wrote: >And fortran programs >are fortran generable, so I can generate a sequence of all fortran >one-variable program F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 ("all" means that >so

Re: Reasons and Persons

Russell Standish wrote: This would imply that there exist "islands" of indentity, and having limited awareness in time and multispace, we can only ever be aware of one instance from each island, but that might change with technology. BTW another analogy is the islands of geneflow within bi

Re: Ascension (was Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example)

Bruno Marchal wrote: >Meanwhile, I >would like to ask George and the others if they have a good >understanding of the present thread, that is on the fact that growing >functions has been well defined, that each sequence of such functions >are well defined, and each diagonalisation defines qui

Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

One can create faster and faster rising functions and larger and larger number until one is blue in the face. The point is that no matter how large a finite number n one defines, I can stand on the shoulder of giants and do better by citing n+1 using simple addition. Now if somehow one came u

Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

Bruno Marchal wrote: Now I think I should train you with diagonalization. I give you an exercise: write a program which, if executed, will stop on the biggest possible natural number. Fairy tale version: you meet a fairy who propose you a wish. You ask to be immortal but the fairy replie

Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

Bruno, Thank you for still working on my post. I am working on the reply, in particular designing the set of function or number that can be diagonalized to generate a large number. I shall be busy this weekend with family matters but I will reply to you in detail. I agree that the idea of qua

The Riemann Zeta - Trouble opening posts

I have had trouble opening "The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE" posts. As soon as I open the post my mail software (in Netscape) closes. I think there is an invisible character or command associated with the subject line, that forces the software to close. I have also experienced the same effect

Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE

d person is a single history and corresponds to "I" AND the bomb goes off/probability{bomb goes off}. Plural person is multiple histories regarding the bomb, and corresponds to "I" AND ("the bomb goes off" inclusive OR "the bomb does not go off".) = "

Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

Bruno Marchal wrote: <> Le 25-mars-06, à 00:51, George Levy a écrit : Smullyan's white knigth had the mission to teach me about the logic of  G and G*. Sorry, he failed. All right, but this is just because he miss Church Thesis and Comp. His purpose actually is just to in

Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example

assical or common sense logic assuming the many-world, and 3) G/G* logic assuming the many-world. What would the white knight do if he were living in the many-world? What kind of situations would highlight his talent to think in G. Would his behavior appear to be paradoxical from our logic

Re: Numbers

tion/illusion of reality at our level of implementation/illusion. George Levy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-lis

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Norman Samish wrote: Thanks to all who replied to my question.  This question has bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made towards an answer. on.    A state of pure "NO THING" would forbid even the existence of numbers, or of empty space, or of a

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Norman Samish wrote: >"Why is there something rather than nothing?" > >When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that "nothing" was >describable - because, if it was, it would not be "nothing." I don't think >of "nothing" as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of a >bi

Unprovable Physical Truths and Unwinnable Arguments

There is a great article entitled "The Limts of Reason" by Gregory Chaitin in the March Issue of  Scientific American page 74. I quote:  "So perhaps mathematicians should not try to prove everything. Sometimes they should try to add new axioms. That is what you have got to do when you are faced

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: George Levy writes: One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is not a number. There is a clear difference between, on the one hand, believing x despite the lack of any supporting evidence and, on the other hand, not believing x

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

Bruno I am still thinking about the naming issue and I am not 100% satisfied with any suggestion. The field we are discussing is really at the intersection of three subjects: Theology, Physics and Psychology. This reminds me that about six years ago I wrote a book which was never published (I

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

I understand Bruno's stand on Machine Theology. After all we are really talking about the "soul in the machine." It is really controversial but so what? It will certainly drive the point home. One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is not a number. George

Re: Lobian Machine

int he'll really go crazy and leave me alone. :-) I bet you never had to deal with patients as wily as me. Aye, there is method in my madness! :-P George Stathis Papaioannou wrote: George Levy writes: Bruno Marchal wrote: Godel's result, known as Godel's second i

Re: Lobian Machine

Bruno Marchal wrote: Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem, is that no consistent machine can prove its own consistency: IF M is consistent then M cannot prove its consistency Bruno, After I read your email, we had a gathering of family and friends, an

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

Naming this field is difficult. This is why I made several suggestions none of which I thought were excellent. Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think it is a question of vocabulary, It is only a question of vocabulary if you intend to communicate with other people. And this is where the difficu

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

Bruno, John and Stephen More on naming: I think the name should include the following concepts 1) modal or relativistic or relative formulation or first person, 2) quantum or quantics, 3) psycho or psyche or consciousness or ego, 4) mechanics or theory. So, picking one term from each row we cou

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

Bruno I don't think either "machine psychology" or "machine theology" work because of the baggage those field already carry. In any case the attribute "machine" sends the wrong picture. And as you have pointed out the terms "computer science"  and "number theory" do not capture the real issue

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an entity's history we can say that there sp

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

Jesse Mazer wrote: Also, I'm still confused about your original argument: "Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, you must accept that no matter how large or small a segment of the continuum is considered, the number of histories is the same. Hence measure is the sam

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

Jesse Mazer wrote: George Levy wrote: Jesse Mazer wrote: George Levy: Bruno Marchal wrote: we are "conscious" only because we belong to a continuum of infinite never ending stories ... ...that's what the lobian machine's "guardian angel" G* says

  1   2   3   4   >