Worth while video

[Jason Resch]

On the subject of reality, featuring John Conway, Max Tegmark, Leonard Susskind, and Nick Bostrom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM

Jason

[spudb...@aol.com]

You'll likely hate my comment, but Susskind and Raphael Bousso are or were pretty big on Boltzmann Brains. The more I look at the words of physicists speaking about this phenomena (pro and con) the more it seems to be an evolving theology. Bostrom might also be into this. Conway may not even be aware of BB, and I would guess that Tegmark would laugh it all off. Which maybe he should. I am amzed and sometimes inspired by the discussions regarding this. Questions arise and evolve such as-

 

In an infinite universe you'd produce more BB's them people

What about a smaller number of BB's?

Would these observers be as described? Having their own personal memories, and personalities, however false?

Being of human level intelligence or better.?

I asked Dr. Clough if a BB could be one of his Monads??

There has been a question asked out there internet-land, whether we exist as thoughs or ideas in one BB?

Finally, is our BB, God?

One Russian Physicist working in Peking wrote a paper that he saw BB's as likely, but that each cosmos would have it's own BB.

 

It's mind-numbing and perhaps not even worth discussing (?)  I apologize if this is too crazy, but it's what I have been interneting about the last couple of weeks. If Our BB did write a program that eventually created us, that might do it for me. Other's would say no. At any rate, it might be a nice thing to be friendly to our universe's BB, if only to enjoy commincating (if possible?) with such a brilliant mind.

 

BB's were believed by Boltzmann to evolve from thermal differences in space. Sort of like Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy drive producing a air borne whale, falling to the surface of the planet, Magarthea. Or it might be one way to simply arrive, via thermal fluctuations.

 

Well, string drink is called for.

 

Mitch

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jul 2013, at 18:25, spudb...@aol.com wrote:

You'll likely hate my comment, but Susskind and Raphael Bousso are or were pretty big on Boltzmann Brains. The more I look at the words of physicists speaking about this phenomena (pro and con) the more it seems to be an evolving theology. Bostrom might also be into this. Conway may not even be aware of BB, and I would guess that Tegmark would laugh it all off. Which maybe he should. I am amzed and sometimes inspired by the discussions regarding this. Questions arise and evolve such as-

 

In an infinite universe you'd produce more BB's them people

What about a smaller number of BB's?

Would these observers be as described? Having their own personal memories, and personalities, however false?

Being of human level intelligence or better.?

I asked Dr. Clough if a BB could be one of his Monads??

There has been a question asked out there internet-land, whether we exist as thoughs or ideas in one BB?

Finally, is our BB, God?

One Russian Physicist working in Peking wrote a paper that he saw BB's as likely, but that each cosmos would have it's own BB.

They begin to well exposed comp, without saying. A BB is a computation, implemented in some universe (which physicists assume).

But "computation implemented in some universe" is what the universal dovetailer dovetail on, and so you can say that there exists infinities of BB in arithmetic.

This leads to a testable conclusion: it is enough to look at ourselves below the reconstitution level, and see if we get the "web of dreams" predicted by computer science.

If we don't find this, it can means three things:

- comp is false

- the classical theory of knowledge is false

- we are in a local simulation, by our descendants perhaps.

 

It's mind-numbing and perhaps not even worth discussing (?)  I apologize if this is too crazy, but it's what I have been interneting about the last couple of weeks. If Our BB did write a program that eventually created us, that might do it for me.

That's Bayesianism, or ASSA. This miss the FPI.  We are, in a sense, in all Boltzman Brains. You must take the FPI into account on the whole of arithmetic, because you cannot be aware of the gigantic delays brought by the "natural implementation of it" made by arithmetic. 

Other's would say no. At any rate, it might be a nice thing to be friendly to our universe's BB, if only to enjoy commincating (if possible?) with such a brilliant mind.

 

BB's were believed by Boltzmann to evolve from thermal differences in space. Sort of like Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy drive producing a air borne whale, falling to the surface of the planet, Magarthea. Or it might be one way to simply arrive, via thermal fluctuations.

I agree that the question of concrete BB in our probable universe belongs to sc. fi today, but this does not really matter, because if we are machine, then we belong already in all BB that exists in arithmetic, and below our substitution level, they multiply and parallelise, if I can say.

 

Well, string drink is called for.

You can't. You have first to derive it from machine's dream theory.

Bruno

 

Mitch

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>; foar <fo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 30, 2013 11:13 pm
Subject: Worth while video

On the subject of reality, featuring John Conway, Max Tegmark, Leonard Susskind, and Nick Bostrom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM

Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

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

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Mitch,

Great comments! I would only wonder why the BB concept is not seen, by Susskind et al, as equivalent to the Observer Moment (or Barborian Time Capsule) concept. My question is how do they justify the 'memory of a past state' of a BB; or do they ignore this? Additionally, it seems that we can easily stretch the BB idea into a "Last Thursdayism" concept.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jul 2013, at 21:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Mitch,

Great comments! I would only wonder why the BB concept is not seen, by Susskind et al, as equivalent to the Observer Moment (or Barborian Time Capsule) concept. My question is how do they justify the 'memory of a past state' of a BB; or do they ignore this? Additionally, it seems that we can easily stretch the BB idea into a "Last Thursdayism" concept.

I agree. And "physical BB" might not make computational sense, as some comp state needs long histories to appear and stay stable.

But it remains to be see, by the math, if deepness and linearity stabilize consciousness enough to get physical laws like the one we infer from observation.

(Cf my comment to Mitch)

Bruno

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

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

I would like to see more remarks from you on how you expect 'the physical laws' to be defined. I have tried to suggest a method, but it requires a way to define a means by which numbers can determine both a quantity of similarity and difference between themselves. I suggest that the notion of bisimulation between computations can be used...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/R9N68B4A0Y4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Stephen,

Dear Bruno,

I would like to see more remarks from you on how you expect 'the physical laws' to be defined. I have tried to suggest a method, but it requires a way to define a means by which numbers can determine both a quantity of similarity and difference between themselves. I suggest that the notion of bisimulation between computations can be used...

That is the kind of thing I could only judge on piece (if this is english). Just do it, and then you can compare with what has been done already. The physical laws are defined by what is invariant, for the FPI,  from the 1p-view of universal machines. Just take literally the consequence in the UDA step 7. This will be modeled by Bp & Dt, mainly, with p sigma_1, for reason that I will explain, probably, when we arrive to it. Bp will be equivalent with p is true in all consistent extension, and Dt will mean that there is a least one extension, which are reasonable for a probability "one" on them.

Bruno

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