real A.I.

[meekerdb]

http://xkcd.com/1450/

[Telmo Menezes]

Nice :)

One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

http://xkcd.com/1450/

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

[LizR]

Have you read "The Genocides" by Thomas M Disch?

Super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but only in the same way we try to eradicate aphids from an orchard.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Nice :)

One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us.

Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means ... :)

Bruno

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

http://xkcd.com/1450/

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

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

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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Nice :)

One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us.

Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means ... :)

https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/calvin-and-hobbes-math.jpg?w=676

[LizR]

On 27 November 2014 at 23:29, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Nice :)

One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us.

Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means ... :)

https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/calvin-and-hobbes-math.jpg?w=676

The one religion that works reliably every time - and probably in every possible universe, too. Tell me more... 

[John Mikes]

Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had long ago her own ideas abou the "zookeeper" syndrom: we are kept here safe for SOME purpose They know, We don't. When we finished our usefulness it is out with us, as long as we are useful (unidentified) for THEM, we live. 

This is based on a MWI different from the usual scientific set of identicals (my narrative) in which violations of the infinite equilibrium (=super symmetry) of the Plenitude (to which we have NO access or even knowledge of) re-dissipated timelessly into the equilibration, YET observed from the inside (as in our case) as a 'physical' system - ours in space and time. We have NO access to 'other' universes (= violational complexities) besides our own, THEY (some?) may have to us (viz. the  zookeepers?). 

In the spirit of such narrative we have no way to 'test' OTHER universes. 

All concerned MWI stories (of identical universes) seem 'fantasy-land' immagination. Mine is not 'proven to 'positive' reasoning, nor is theirs. 

One more thing: Creation ex nihilo is reasonable looking at the figments of our physical 'world' sciences: take the more and more primitive ingredients of MATTER(?) and you get to NO-MATTER (math?) items: a NIHIL indeed. 

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had long ago her own ideas abou the "zookeeper" syndrom: we are kept here safe for SOME purpose They know, We don't. When we finished our usefulness it is out with us, as long as we are useful (unidentified) for THEM, we live.

Maybe you've read "The Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy"? If not, I suspect you'd like it.

Lately I like to imagine the human experience as the result of a transcendental being taking some very weird drug. I imagine the being taking a deep breath, gaining some courage, thinking "fuck it" and swallowing the pill. And suddenly popping out of a vagina.

 

This is based on a MWI different from the usual scientific set of identicals (my narrative) in which violations of the infinite equilibrium (=super symmetry) of the Plenitude (to which we have NO access or even knowledge of) re-dissipated timelessly into the equilibration, YET observed from the inside (as in our case) as a 'physical' system - ours in space and time. We have NO access to 'other' universes (= violational complexities) besides our own, THEY (some?) may have to us (viz. the  zookeepers?).

Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to agree a lot with what Bruno proposes.

 

 

In the spirit of such narrative we have no way to 'test' OTHER universes.

I think we do, but only in the first person. And by risking death.

 

All concerned MWI stories (of identical universes) seem 'fantasy-land' immagination. Mine is not 'proven to 'positive' reasoning, nor is theirs.

But what is fantasy land? What is the difference in terms of reality status between Napoleon Bonaparte and Superman? Neither exists in the physical sense, both are ideas.

 

One more thing: Creation ex nihilo is reasonable looking at the figments of our physical 'world' sciences: take the more and more primitive ingredients of MATTER(?) and you get to NO-MATTER (math?) items: a NIHIL indeed.

I fluctuate between mathematical realism and math as just another idea. What you say seems to support one or the other, depending on the mood. This fundamental indecision makes me a fellow agnostic.

Cheers,

Telmo.

[John Mikes]

Telmo: - funny. 

First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???) in fairly reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they format "The World". Bruno said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to me. I took his word - am not an argue-boy.

 

Secondly: MY agnosticism is not the one 'on the books': it sais (if I pretend to know it at all) that there are things galore we DON"T know - yet even those influence the 'world' we carry. And yes, I agree with Bruno  in some aspects, as it turned out over those 20some years we exchange ideas online. Sometimes I even ask questions...

Thirdly: who said Napy Bony and Superman do NOT exist? in the moment when we THINK about them, they DO exist in our mentality (you do not want to say: 'soul', do you).  And so is the existence of all that 'Fantasieland' I call Science. A theory EXISTS - even if it is fallse. And so do ideas.

I do not draw the line between "physical" (???) and ideational existence. 

The little I learned in my natural sciences made me think twice about both. 

And please, do not ask questions about this: I am agnostic.<G>

[meekerdb]

On 11/30/2014 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Telmo: - funny. 

First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???) in fairly reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they format "The World". Bruno said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to me. I took his word - am not an argue-boy.

 

Secondly: MY agnosticism is not the one 'on the books': it sais (if I pretend to know it at all) that there are things galore we DON"T know - yet even those influence the 'world' we carry.

The question is, are there things we DO know?

And yes, I agree with Bruno  in some aspects, as it turned out over those 20some years we exchange ideas online. Sometimes I even ask questions...

Thirdly: who said Napy Bony and Superman do NOT exist? in the moment when we THINK about them, they DO exist in our mentality (you do not want to say: 'soul', do you).  And so is the existence of all that 'Fantasieland' I call Science. A theory EXISTS - even if it is fallse. And so do ideas.

So the idea of unicorns exist, but do unicorns?  Do they exist when we think about them or is it just that the idea of unicorns exists.  Does Superman exist or just the idea of Superman?  ISTM we need some word to distinguish the difference between "exists" and "idea of exists".

I do not draw the line between "physical" (???) and ideational existence. 

The little I learned in my natural sciences made me think twice about both. 

And please, do not ask questions about this: I am agnostic.<G>

How do you know that?

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Dec 2014, at 00:58, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/30/2014 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Telmo: - funny. 

First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???) in fairly reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they format "The World". Bruno said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to me. I took his word - am not an argue-boy.

 

Secondly: MY agnosticism is not the one 'on the books': it sais (if I pretend to know it at all) that there are things galore we DON"T know - yet even those influence the 'world' we carry.

The question is, are there things we DO know?

And yes, I agree with Bruno  in some aspects, as it turned out over those 20some years we exchange ideas online. Sometimes I even ask questions...

Thirdly: who said Napy Bony and Superman do NOT exist? in the moment when we THINK about them, they DO exist in our mentality (you do not want to say: 'soul', do you).  And so is the existence of all that 'Fantasieland' I call Science. A theory EXISTS - even if it is fallse. And so do ideas.

So the idea of unicorns exist, but do unicorns?  Do they exist when we think about them or is it just that the idea of unicorns exists.  Does Superman exist or just the idea of Superman?  ISTM we need some word to distinguish the difference between "exists" and "idea of exists".

Unicorns do not exist, by definition, as they belong to Fairy Tales.

So, each time we meet a unicorn, we make a picture of it, and put it in a book on monsters or animal diseases. And we don't refer to it as a unicorn, despite they are unicorn.

Of course the idea of unicorn exist, in the mind of some "relative-numbers".

Bruno

I do not draw the line between "physical" (???) and ideational existence. 

The little I learned in my natural sciences made me think twice about both. 

And please, do not ask questions about this: I am agnostic.<G>

How do you know that?

Brent

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

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

[LizR]

Unicorns exist, but they are more commonly called rhinos.

Of course unicorns may exist, in that evolution may have produced something that looks like a unicorn on a planet somewhere. They aren't that unlikely (unless you include the stuff about virgins and so on).

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Dec 2014, at 01:18, LizR wrote:

Unicorns exist, but they are more commonly called rhinos.

Hmmm... OK. With a large definition of unicorn. I mean those are very large unicorns!

Of course unicorns may exist, in that evolution may have produced something that looks like a unicorn on a planet somewhere. They aren't that unlikely (unless you include the stuff about virgins and so on).

In "our universe"? I don't know. Perhaps if life itself is not that rare, and I have no clues on this. I have evidence that life is frequent, and that life is not frequent. They compensate each other.

Although in the arithmetical reality, there are infinities of dreams, including sharable first person plural coherent long one, in which unicorn (with again some large definition) can exist.

Of course, with my definition of unicorn, as *fictitious* objects, belonging only to fairy tales, they don't exist, even in arithmetic.

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

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Of course, with my definition of unicorn, as *fictitious* objects, belonging only to fairy tales, they don't exist, even in arithmetic.

A integer that was larger than 2 but smaller than 3 is 100% fictitious even in arithmetic, but would a white horse-like creature with a single horn like that of a narwhal be as fictitious as that, or would it be more like a fictionalized account of a true story that just happened to have a few composite characters?

  John K Clark

 

 

[LizR]

On 2 December 2014 at 22:56, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 02 Dec 2014, at 01:18, LizR wrote:

Unicorns exist, but they are more commonly called rhinos.

Hmmm... OK. With a large definition of unicorn. I mean those are very large unicorns!

The point is that may have been the origin of the legend - traveller's tales that got distorted. Plus the narwhal horn as mentioned by John.

Of course unicorns may exist, in that evolution may have produced something that looks like a unicorn on a planet somewhere. They aren't that unlikely (unless you include the stuff about virgins and so on).

In "our universe"? I don't know. Perhaps if life itself is not that rare, and I have no clues on this. I have evidence that life is frequent, and that life is not frequent. They compensate each other.

Yes, that's why I only said they "may" exist. Given that it seems a reasonable adaptation that could easily occur (unlike say cows able to jump over the moon or fire-breathing dragons....probably). So if life is common enough in the universe, evolution could have produced something fairly unicornish somewhere. 

Although in the arithmetical reality, there are infinities of dreams, including sharable first person plural coherent long one, in which unicorn (with again some large definition) can exist.

OK, although I don't know how that works I am prepared to believe you (like Harry Potter universes in the MWI)

 

Of course, with my definition of unicorn, as *fictitious* objects, belonging only to fairy tales, they don't exist, even in arithmetic.

So something that only looked like a unicorn wouldn't count...? :-)

[Bruno Marchal]

That's the point, and you did illustrate it well when mentioning the rhinos. Nobody would pretend that now we know that unicorn exists, because of the rhinos, unless (s)he is in a context where unicorn is taken literally as meaning "one corn". Unicorn, like Sherlock Holmes, are terms normally denoting fictive object/notion, unlike PI, sqrt(2), or the Higgs bosons which exist in some form (algorithm for making prediction, for example).

That the idea of unicorns comes from the rhino is an interesting idea, but it would not make the unicorn *of the fairy tale* into physical existence. They do exist, but only in fairy tales (which is different of not existing at all or not conceivable, etc).

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

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Dec 2014, at 19:21, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Of course, with my definition of unicorn, as *fictitious* objects, belonging only to fairy tales, they don't exist, even in arithmetic.

A integer that was larger than 2 but smaller than 3 is 100% fictitious even in arithmetic,

No doubt about this.

but would a white horse-like creature with a single horn like that of a narwhal be as fictitious as that, or would it be more like a fictionalized account of a true story that just happened to have a few composite characters?

I think that horses or other horse-like animals with one corn exist. Here is a picture, below, and I am sure you can find others looking on the net. I saw also picture of humans with one, and two corns. I saw also a little girls with many corns. Bones do that, through some diseases. I think that they might account better for the unicorns of the fairy tales than rhino, as such disease are well know by farmers, and probably where considered as being somehow magical some times ago. 

Bruno

  John K Clark

 

 

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

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

[John Mikes]

Bruno: one of your tiny little aberrations:

how did "existence" changed in your argument into "physical existence"?

I argued that there is no such difference, since nobody can identify the term "physical" in unquestionable format. Just like the "Godcreated Earth". 

JM

[LizR]

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 2:10 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

On 02 Dec 2014, at 19:21, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Of course, with my definition of unicorn, as *fictitious* objects, belonging only to fairy tales, they don't exist, even in arithmetic.

 

A integer that was larger than 2 but smaller than 3 is 100% fictitious even in arithmetic,

 

No doubt about this.

 

but would a white horse-like creature with a single horn like that of a narwhal be as fictitious as that, or would it be more like a fictionalized account of a true story that just happened to have a few composite characters?

 

 

I think that horses or other horse-like animals with one corn exist. Here is a picture, below, and I am sure you can find others looking on the net. I saw also picture of humans with one, and two corns. I saw also a little girls with many corns. Bones do that, through some diseases. I think that they might account better for the unicorns of the fairy tales than rhino, as such disease are well know by farmers, and probably where considered as being somehow magical some times ago. 

 

 

 

Cute goat J. Speaking of Unicorns it was trade in Narwhale tusks that kept the Norse Greenland colonies going… sold off to various European aristocrats (and alchemists) who treasured them as being the real deal, believing they had magical properties.

-Chris

 

 

Bruno

 

  John K Clark

 

 

 

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

[meekerdb]

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
> I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference? Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we
point to when asked to define "exits"?

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2014, at 22:05, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno: one of your tiny little aberrations:

how did "existence" changed in your argument into "physical existence"?

I am studying the digital version of the antic Mechanism idea, already explained to the king Milinda (plausibly the greek king called "Menandre" in french) some millenaries ago, but reinstated by Descartes, notably.

In the theory, I have given an argument (UDA) which leads to a scheme of theories of everything: all theories in which we can defined a Turing universal system. It will define the same physics.

I have chose arithmetic and combinators as simple concrete example.

So what exist "really"? You have the choice between numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ...  (or combinators K, S, KK, KS, ...) and nothing else, except that we postulate also the addition and multiplication laws (resp application and  abstraction, which does not introduce any new number, but is needed to define the universal system, here universal numbers, which will dream and select the anything else).

My usual parody of Kronecker sum up well what happens: God cretaed the natural numbers, all the rest are dreams by the (universal number).

So something ontologically exists if it is equal to some s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))). 

Then you have the epistemological existence, and this will include physical existence. Something physically exist if it is observable, and by UDA we know that this means having some probability one in a repeatable way from some first (plural) person points of view. Mathematically this is capture by the physical or material modalities. precisely the one given by the []p & p (and []p & <>t, and []p & <>t & p) with p sigma_1 (that is a proposition of arithmetic having the shape "it exists n such that P(n) with P decidable).

Keep in mind the math of the points of view

p       ontological existence level

[]p     science level, the level of beliefs, ideas, sometimes called the doxastic level.

[]p & p knowledge level  

[]p & <>t   Observable level, first person plural, the physical, proper

[]p & <>t & p The observable and perceptible level

They all differ (obey different logic), and with p sigma_1 they all defined quantum modal logic, and so provide structure akin to Hilbert Space (very abstract one), with symmetries (making the experience/experiment repeatable) and reflexivity.

That leads to a way to distinguish the pure mathematical existence Ex (... x .... ) from the different form of existence:

we have a notion of scientific existence (as ideas):  [] Ex [] (... x ....), physical existence (the same, but with the modal box redefined as being the modal operator corresponding to the nuance above.

But here, we were in the physical context, and so we were talking only about physical existence. 

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2014, at 05:05, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

Absolutely. This comes from the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument). Something exist physically if you can bet on it with a probability one in the arithmetical multiplication experience (the global FPI on arithmetic).

This works only if the probability one, i.e. []p & <>t, admits a quantization, so that we have a "phase space" (in the logician sense of a symmetric and reflexive structure). It happens that we do recover such structure (that was the math part of my thesis).

This leads to many open problem, with the hope of getting what we need to have space (coming from the graded aspect of the material hypostases). 

In fact all []^n & <>^m t gives an abstract quantum logic when n is least or equal to m, (with []^n p = [][][]...[] p), and from this I expect some Temperley-Lieb algebra which should provide the "physical space" in which we can derive the rest of physics in a manner similar to Noether (like in Stenger book). 

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

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2014, at 05:37, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 2:10 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

On 02 Dec 2014, at 19:21, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Of course, with my definition of unicorn, as *fictitious* objects, belonging only to fairy tales, they don't exist, even in arithmetic.

 

A integer that was larger than 2 but smaller than 3 is 100% fictitious even in arithmetic,

 

No doubt about this.

 

but would a white horse-like creature with a single horn like that of a narwhal be as fictitious as that, or would it be more like a fictionalized account of a true story that just happened to have a few composite characters?

 

 

I think that horses or other horse-like animals with one corn exist. Here is a picture, below, and I am sure you can find others looking on the net. I saw also picture of humans with one, and two corns. I saw also a little girls with many corns. Bones do that, through some diseases. I think that they might account better for the unicorns of the fairy tales than rhino, as such disease are well know by farmers, and probably where considered as being somehow magical some times ago. 

 

 

 

Cute goat J. Speaking of Unicorns it was trade in Narwhale tusks that kept the Norse Greenland colonies going… sold off to various European aristocrats (and alchemists) who treasured them as being the real deal, believing they had magical properties.

Thanks for that information. We fear or praise what we don't understand. It is a reasonable attitude, except when exploited by unscrupulous manipulators, like with most institutionalized religion.

Bruno

-Chris

 

 

Bruno

 

  John K Clark

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

[Bruno Marchal]

Physical existence is the natural way to look at things. It is better
for the physical survival of the animals. But we cannot extrapolate
this in the metaphysical or theological. If we do, it means that we
choose the theology of Aristotle, which is nice, and
"paradigmatic" ... since Aristotle. yet science (including theology)
is born from taking some distance with the identification of "real"
and observable.

The fact is that there are two strong evidences that Aristotelian
ontology cannot work for the fundamental questioning.

1) it does not work with the computationalist hypothesis (by UDA, the
physical is redefined by the observable or invariant for self-
multiplication/differentiation in the arithmetical reality)

2) as (retro)explained by "1)", the quantum facts, where the existence
of an object is also provided by a measure on (quantum) computations
(a measure which exists and has a unique shape thanks to Gleason
theorem).

We still lack the equivalent of Gleason theorem in arithmetic. It is
obviously a difficult math problem.

Bruno



>
> Brent

[Telmo Menezes]

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Telmo.

 

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a mental hospital?

Brent

[Richard Ruquist]

What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

--

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.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014  Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

I take Noether's Theorem seriously so I take seriously the idea that nobody who lives in a universe when the laws of physics do not change with time will ever observe a violation of the conservation of mass/energy.  

  John K Clark

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Unfortunately, if we assume computationalism, the physical is no more 3p, but is 1p-plural, which makes the FPI locally 3p, but still globally 1p-plural. But that 1p-plural here is not the human 1p, but the 3p definable "1p-plural" use the 1p of the Löbian machine, which is very general, and admits a 3p definition, like []p & <>t, which is definable by the machine unlike the modalities with " & p" added to it.

I guess I will need to explain this a bit more perhaps. You forget the "reversal" physics/machine-theology/psychology. In case of panic, note that the moon would still exist physically even if the humans did not appear. But there would be no moon without Löbian machines, which is not a problem because the existence of Löbian machines is derivable in elementary arithmetic. It is a consequence of 2+2=4.

cf: NUMBER => MACHINE'S DREAM => PHYSICAL REALITIES

Bruno

Telmo.

 

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+unsubscribe@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.

Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.

Bruno

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

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.

Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.

Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.

Richard 

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Unfortunately, if we assume computationalism, the physical is no more 3p, but is 1p-plural, which makes the FPI locally 3p, but still globally 1p-plural. But that 1p-plural here is not the human 1p, but the 3p definable "1p-plural" use the 1p of the Löbian machine, which is very general, and admits a 3p definition, like []p & <>t, which is definable by the machine unlike the modalities with " & p" added to it.

I guess I will need to explain this a bit more perhaps. You forget the "reversal" physics/machine-theology/psychology. In case of panic, note that the moon would still exist physically even if the humans did not appear. But there would be no moon without Löbian machines, which is not a problem because the existence of Löbian machines is derivable in elementary arithmetic. It is a consequence of 2+2=4.

cf: NUMBER => MACHINE'S DREAM => PHYSICAL REALITIES

Thanks Bruno. I have no problem with this.

I was referring to "physical existence" in the conventional materialistic sense. In your model the physical reality has a much different ontological status than in materialism, even though, as you say, the outcome is the same for many purposes.

Maybe we lack terms. But, also to reply to Brent, this idea of 1p-plural is perhaps why one can doubt 3p reality and still avoid the mad house.

Telmo.

[LizR]

Having been on this list for a while, you should know the difference. It may be that they are the same thing, or it may not. The jury is still out.

[LizR]

On 6 December 2014 at 05:20, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Yes. The distinction is between what we are aware of existing (and continuing to exist in our absence) and a hypothetical substrate from which the physical world may or may not emerge. The mathematical universe hypothesis and comp being obvious candidates for a non physical primary reality.

I'm afraid Brent is basically trolling, because he's well aware of this distinction.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Dec 2014, at 12:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.

Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.

Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.

Because QM's equation allows only interference between the branch, not physical interaction. You can formally add the energy of course, but that sum of energy is not available in any branches. According to Weinberg, that would be the case if the SWE was slightly delinearize. Strict linearity avoids all physical or observable mixture of the components of the universal wave, making such a sum of energy in different branches of the wave non physical. An hydrogen atom with an electron in a superposed state of two level of energy has not an energy being the sum of the two energies. You don't need that sum of energy to put the electron is such a state. the superposition of the incoming photon will be enough.

I might think of a more formal treatment of this.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Dec 2014, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Unfortunately, if we assume computationalism, the physical is no more 3p, but is 1p-plural, which makes the FPI locally 3p, but still globally 1p-plural. But that 1p-plural here is not the human 1p, but the 3p definable "1p-plural" use the 1p of the Löbian machine, which is very general, and admits a 3p definition, like []p & <>t, which is definable by the machine unlike the modalities with " & p" added to it.

I guess I will need to explain this a bit more perhaps. You forget the "reversal" physics/machine-theology/psychology. In case of panic, note that the moon would still exist physically even if the humans did not appear. But there would be no moon without Löbian machines, which is not a problem because the existence of Löbian machines is derivable in elementary arithmetic. It is a consequence of 2+2=4.

cf: NUMBER => MACHINE'S DREAM => PHYSICAL REALITIES

Thanks Bruno. I have no problem with this.

I was referring to "physical existence" in the conventional materialistic sense.

OK. 1p-plural is certainly locally 3p-physical, in the conventionall sense.  If computationalism is correct, it has to be like that.

In your model the physical reality has a much different ontological status than in materialism, even though, as you say, the outcome is the same for many purposes.

That remains to be seen, but the first very modest result confirms this, at a place most thought it would not.

On the other side: the contagion of superposition to the observer states gives an empirical confirmation of the "natural" appearance of 1p plural person (with duplication or n-plication of *population* of interacting observers). It is less obvious with computationalism, but far from totally hopeless though.

Maybe we lack terms. But, also to reply to Brent, this idea of 1p-plural is perhaps why one can doubt 3p reality and still avoid the mad house.

We still have the 3p basic ontology of the chosenTOE also (like numbers or combinators). I mean to avoid the asylum ...

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

... because the jury is still out for the truth of computationalism (and this will remain true, strictly speaking, for ever). But if we assume computationalism, then physical existence and arithmetical or mathematical existence are provably different, and the physical is given by a first person plural modality. Then accepting the ancient treatment of knowledge, that Gödel redeems through the intensional variants of provability this becomes testable, and partially tested. If the quanta appeared in Z1 or X1, instead of Z1* and X1*, it would have been meaningful to make the physical reality more independent of the machine's mind, but they appear in the starred logic (+ in S4Grz1* = S4Grz1), making the quanta into particular qualia, and physics is more idealistic than I thought myself before I saw this. Computationalism favors Everett, but without neglecting so much those who consider the quantum amplitude as describing knowledge states. Too much for my taste, but wishful thinking is inoperative here. Pauli and Christopher Fuchs are less wrong that I would be inclined to believe from my physical intuition.

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

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

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno,

You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a constant. 

Is that so?

Richard

[Telmo Menezes]

I don't think he's doing so malevolently. My impression is that he resists what he perceives as "groupthink". I don't agree but I can respect this type of position.

 

--
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.

[John Clark]

 On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.

Summing up the energies in every branch would be easy if the total energy in each universe is zero, and today it looks like it very well might be. But before you start adding up all the energy in a universe you've got to remember that energy can be positive or negative; mass/energy is positive and you can use it to perform work, but if something had negative energy I couldn't get any work out of it, I'd have to use work to do anything to it. Gravitational energy is negative, if I wanted to lift you out of the Earth's gravitational well and put you on the moon I would not get any work out of it, I'd have to use up work to do it. And it was found that if you add up all the positive energy contained in ordinary matter in the universe and then subtracted the negative energy that every particle has with every other particle you get a figure close to zero. If Dark Matter is added to the calculation things get even closer to zero and many strongly suspect is precisely zero. Think what this means, the total energy in the universe is zero.

That's all fine for a universe that isn't accelerating but ours is, so what about Dark Energy? That's where the theory of inflation comes in. Einstein knew as far back as 1917 that mass\energy was not the only thing that can produce gravity, pressure can too, and pressure can be positive or negative. If you stretch a rubber ball in all directions it will be under negative pressure (also called tension) and according to Einstein such negative pressure will produce a small negative gravitational field pushing things apart. 

The idea is that VERY soon after the Big Bang the universe was full of a inflation field that had a enormous negative pressure, and this caused a enormous negative gravitational effect, which in turn caused the super fast expansion of everything. After a billionth of a trillionth of a second or so this field underwent a phase change and became something much less ferociously powerful but it still had a (much more modest) negative pressure so the acceleration of the universe became much more gentle.

The really neat part is that when something that has a negative pressure expands it gains energy and the pressure becomes more negative, unlike things that have a positive pressure (like a gas) where expansion causes them to loose energy and the pressure to become less positive.  So as the universe expands the pressure of the inflation field becomes more negative which creates a stronger negative gravitational field which causes the pressure of the inflation field become even more negative which creates a even stronger negative gravitational field which...

So the universe expands faster and faster and all without violating the law of conservation on energy.

  John K Clark

    

   

 

[LizR]

On 8 December 2014 at 03:31, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:27 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6 December 2014 at 05:20, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Yes. The distinction is between what we are aware of existing (and continuing to exist in our absence) and a hypothetical substrate from which the physical world may or may not emerge. The mathematical universe hypothesis and comp being obvious candidates for a non physical primary reality.

I'm afraid Brent is basically trolling, because he's well aware of this distinction.

I don't think he's doing so malevolently. My impression is that he resists what he perceives as "groupthink". I don't agree but I can respect this type of position.

Asking "what's the difference?" about something he already knows is being deliberately provocative, in my opinion. He didn't say "I don't think there is a difference" (which is probably true). He knows that these concepts are separated out for the purposes of discussion, and what the difference between them is.

I don't think it's "malevolent" - that is an over the top word to use. It's aggressive and faux-naif, though.

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 06 Dec 2014, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Unfortunately, if we assume computationalism, the physical is no more 3p, but is 1p-plural, which makes the FPI locally 3p, but still globally 1p-plural. But that 1p-plural here is not the human 1p, but the 3p definable "1p-plural" use the 1p of the Löbian machine, which is very general, and admits a 3p definition, like []p & <>t, which is definable by the machine unlike the modalities with " & p" added to it.

I guess I will need to explain this a bit more perhaps. You forget the "reversal" physics/machine-theology/psychology. In case of panic, note that the moon would still exist physically even if the humans did not appear. But there would be no moon without Löbian machines, which is not a problem because the existence of Löbian machines is derivable in elementary arithmetic. It is a consequence of 2+2=4.

cf: NUMBER => MACHINE'S DREAM => PHYSICAL REALITIES

Thanks Bruno. I have no problem with this.

I was referring to "physical existence" in the conventional materialistic sense.

OK. 1p-plural is certainly locally 3p-physical, in the conventionall sense.  If computationalism is correct, it has to be like that.

Why?

 

In your model the physical reality has a much different ontological status than in materialism, even though, as you say, the outcome is the same for many purposes.

That remains to be seen, but the first very modest result confirms this, at a place most thought it would not.

On the other side: the contagion of superposition to the observer states gives an empirical confirmation of the "natural" appearance of 1p plural person (with duplication or n-plication of *population* of interacting observers). It is less obvious with computationalism, but far from totally hopeless though.

Maybe we lack terms. But, also to reply to Brent, this idea of 1p-plural is perhaps why one can doubt 3p reality and still avoid the mad house.

We still have the 3p basic ontology of the chosenTOE also (like numbers or combinators). I mean to avoid the asylum ...

Ok, but I don't think this is what conventional materialists have in mind. I think materialists are extremists in a sense. They absolutely buy into common sense and frame science as an effort to recover that common sense no matter what. This leads to extremes, like doubting one's own consciousness or maintaining positions of faith over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

Telmo.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Richard,

On 07 Dec 2014, at 15:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno,

You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a constant. 

Is that so?

I think indeed, assuming QM (without collapse),  that the total energy of the multiverse is constant, and even equal to zero. Cf DeWitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.

Have you read Wilczek short paper referred to by Bruce Kellett? 

http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf

It explains why QM implies, at least formally, why we should not add the energy of the different terms in the superposition. 

That seems obvious to me. We never consider that a particle going through two slits needs the doubling of its energy. If that was the case, a quantum computer solving big factorization by using Shor algorithm would need more energy than the one available in the observable universe. 

Bruno

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

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Richard,

On 07 Dec 2014, at 15:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno,

You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a constant. 

Is that so?

I think indeed, assuming QM (without collapse),  that the total energy of the multiverse is constant, and even equal to zero. Cf DeWitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.

Have you read Wilczek short paper referred to by Bruce Kellett? 

http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf

It explains why QM implies, at least formally, why we should not add the energy of the different terms in the superposition. 

Yes, and I thought it was a snooker. He is saying that E1 and E2 are both less than E=E1+E2 where E is the original energy of the waves in the incident branch.

Let's say the original branch contained one photon of frequency E/h. Then the two resulting branches contain photons of E1/h and E2/h respectively so that two photons of differing frequencies result. That is contrary to experimental results as well as common sense.

Richard.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2014, at 11:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 06 Dec 2014, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 05 Dec 2014, at 17:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary existence.

What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?

Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality seriously. No?

Unfortunately, if we assume computationalism, the physical is no more 3p, but is 1p-plural, which makes the FPI locally 3p, but still globally 1p-plural. But that 1p-plural here is not the human 1p, but the 3p definable "1p-plural" use the 1p of the Löbian machine, which is very general, and admits a 3p definition, like []p & <>t, which is definable by the machine unlike the modalities with " & p" added to it.

I guess I will need to explain this a bit more perhaps. You forget the "reversal" physics/machine-theology/psychology. In case of panic, note that the moon would still exist physically even if the humans did not appear. But there would be no moon without Löbian machines, which is not a problem because the existence of Löbian machines is derivable in elementary arithmetic. It is a consequence of 2+2=4.

cf: NUMBER => MACHINE'S DREAM => PHYSICAL REALITIES

Thanks Bruno. I have no problem with this.

I was referring to "physical existence" in the conventional materialistic sense.

OK. 1p-plural is certainly locally 3p-physical, in the conventionall sense.  If computationalism is correct, it has to be like that.

Why?

Take the iterated WM-duplication. The 1p of the observer is given by the record of its personal experience. A typical observer has some random history, like WMMMMWMWWMMWWWM ... OK?

For the external 3p observer there is no random events which would have occurred. Its own diary, after his interview of all resulting copies, contains just all sequences, and is equivalent with a counting of the natural numbers (in base 2, say), which is hardly seen as a random phenomenon!

From this we might thing that the first person indeterminacy is not testable, and that it is not like in quantum mechanics where two observers can agree on some statistical test. It looks like the QM indeterminacy has this 3p feature lacking in the 1p indeterminacy.

Of course this is wrong. two observers can share the 1p indeterminacy: it is enough they both enter the duplication machine. If you duplicate population of machines, they will share the statistical result. If the guy above, who got the WMMMMWMWWMMWWWM... story, was duplicated together with a guy wanting to make the statistical test, they would both share the same random history, and in case they both agree on the test, will both agree if the test succeeded or not. 

That first person experience, which is sharable in each resulting population (of a duplication experience) is what I call the first person plural experience. It is still first person (= content of diaries by people doing self-duplication, or self-superposition for that matter), but it is sharable, among each of such population. From their point of view, it is exactly like a 3p-"event". 

COMP + non-solipsisme must imply that we share the FPI, we get entangled, so to speak, by the contagion of the duplication of the "other" observer with which we talk.

In that sense, we see that Everett saves Comp from solipsisme. We are, by QM linearity, multiplied together. 

I should have said "If COMP is correct, and non-solipisme is correct, the physical has to be 1p plural, and we should share the computations just above our substitution level. Now QM confirms this, unless the put back some magic like the collapse (a collective hallucination, according to Feynman, and comp shows this too and extends it to the wave itself). 

Once share such 1p stories, it is hard for us to see that they are 1p, and we take them at first for 3p things. We better should, in case we prefer to eat instead of being eaten. The prey has to be eaten to realize that the predator was an illusion, or life would not have developed, somehow.

Hope this clarifies a bit. 

 

In your model the physical reality has a much different ontological status than in materialism, even though, as you say, the outcome is the same for many purposes.

That remains to be seen, but the first very modest result confirms this, at a place most thought it would not.

On the other side: the contagion of superposition to the observer states gives an empirical confirmation of the "natural" appearance of 1p plural person (with duplication or n-plication of *population* of interacting observers). It is less obvious with computationalism, but far from totally hopeless though.

Maybe we lack terms. But, also to reply to Brent, this idea of 1p-plural is perhaps why one can doubt 3p reality and still avoid the mad house.

We still have the 3p basic ontology of the chosenTOE also (like numbers or combinators). I mean to avoid the asylum ...

Ok, but I don't think this is what conventional materialists have in mind.

Certainly not. They believe in primitive particles, localized in a primitive 3d volume, with masses, charge, and other attributes. Of course with QM, even in Everett, this can only be a sort of approximation.

I think materialists are extremists in a sense. They absolutely buy into common sense and frame science as an effort to recover that common sense no matter what.

Hmm... Common sense is not bad. They just don't push it enough to see the contradictions or difficulties. 

Primitive matter is not that much "common sense", than Aristotelian brainwashing. With the help of evolution to confuse matter and the metaphysical or theological concept of primitive or primary matter.

This leads to extremes, like doubting one's own consciousness

OK. But that's is not common sense. It is non sense. 

or maintaining positions of faith over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In all case, we need faith to believe in a reality (a model, in the painter or logician sense, which we can compare with our theory/painting). No consistent machine can prove the existence of that model, because that would be equivalent (by Gödel's completeness theorem) to proving its own consistency, which is impossible (by Gödel's incompleteness theorem).

That's why all machines which believe in a reality (enough rich to belong to that reality) needs faith.

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

Of course. *some* people say that they are skeptic just to say that they don't believe in immaterial angels. They ignore that we can be skeptic for primitively material things, as opposed to immaterial math. 

The problem is that people ignore that a platonist is strongly atheist, with respect to *all* Aristotelian 'gods: that is both the creator *and* the creation. But they are still "believer", if only in some truth they have faith in, so that they can search for it.

Then if we take computationalism seriously enough, using the weak usual Occam, we see that we can't avoid a coming back to Plato, where matter is an emerging *point of view*, starting from a theory of mind/perception/observable, itself starting from addition and multiplication of natural numbers (or anything Turing equivalent).

Add the classical theory of knowledge, and its variants imposed by incompleteness, and things get refutable experimentally, making comp a "scientific", in Popper sense (already informally in Plato, imo) theory.

That illustrates also that exact science has an non empty intersection with philosophy/metaphysics/theology, and ... well that is enough for being hated by exact-scientists and philosophers alike in obscurantist time... 

In science we still kill the diplomat when the domain are judged too much separated. Yet, historically, we know that the separation here was artificial, and driven by political goals, not arguments. People will swallow soon or later. Like cannabis, we can't hide the true fact for long. If the humans can't, the spider will, or the machines. I think comp might predict that lies have finite run time, unlike the truth (but I am not sure, not for all type of lies ...).

Bruno

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

[John Mikes]

Hi, Bruno,

do you have a short (reasonbly WORDED???) explanation for what you call ENERGY?

I asked this question from several physicists and did not get an answer I could even follow (not: understand, of course). Math summersaults do not help. 

[LizR]

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike, who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?  

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John,

On 08 Dec 2014, at 22:28, John Mikes wrote:

Hi, Bruno,

do you have a short (reasonbly WORDED???) explanation for what you call ENERGY?

I asked this question from several physicists and did not get an answer I could even follow (not: understand, of course). Math summersaults do not help. 

What about the wiki definition:

"In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed. The joule is the SI unit of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it 1 metre against a force of 1 newton."

This is enough to understand my point to Richard: you can't add the energy between branch of a quantum superposition, because this would require interaction, where we have only interference.

Bruno

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

[meekerdb]

On 12/9/2014 3:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?

It's a common argument I hear in regard to whether human activity is responsible for any particular climate phenomenon.  I hear, "It's just natural cycles.  CO2 was much higher in the past, before humans even existed."

Brent

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:09 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

 

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

 

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

 

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

 

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?  

 

It certainly seems so based on a sampling of their output. The MO of climate skeptics – in my experience -- is to grab on to some anomaly or discrepancy in some dataset (or some puffed up sinister sounding largely made up scandal, such as Climategate for example). Giving them a toe hold to launch into an attack on the entire edifice of climate science based on some cherry picked data. Often it is anecdotal data – say an unusually cold winter… anything that can make good copy and sow doubt in scientifically illiterate minds.

I see little scientific rigor, or intellectual honesty, operating within the skeptic community; seems to me mostly made up of political operatives and PR marketing spin types that only deals in convenient cherry picked facts (ignoring broad swaths of data) and that often merely incestuously repeats baseless accusations that reverberate around the many Kock brother funded archipelago of astroturf organizations. (An American expression for fake grass roots organizations – e.g. astroturf being fake grass. Grass roots organization, is another American expression for spontaneously rising broad based movements arising as a genuine expression of the people’s will.)

Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon, funded largely by powerful fossil energy interests that are acting to preserve the future value of their large carbon holdings.

-Chris

 

 

 

 

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

[meekerdb]

On 12/9/2014 9:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:09 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

 

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

 

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

 

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

 

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?  

 

It certainly seems so based on a sampling of their output. The MO of climate skeptics – in my experience -- is to grab on to some anomaly or discrepancy in some dataset (or some puffed up sinister sounding largely made up scandal, such as Climategate for example). Giving them a toe hold to launch into an attack on the entire edifice of climate science based on some cherry picked data. Often it is anecdotal data – say an unusually cold winter… anything that can make good copy and sow doubt in scientifically illiterate minds.

I see little scientific rigor, or intellectual honesty, operating within the skeptic community; seems to me mostly made up of political operatives and PR marketing spin types that only deals in convenient cherry picked facts (ignoring broad swaths of data) and that often merely incestuously repeats baseless accusations that reverberate around the many Kock brother funded archipelago of astroturf organizations. (An American expression for fake grass roots organizations – e.g. astroturf being fake grass. Grass roots organization, is another American expression for spontaneously rising broad based movements arising as a genuine expression of the people’s will.)

Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon, funded largely by powerful fossil energy interests that are acting to preserve the future value of their large carbon holdings.

The Climate Denialists echo the same rhetorical tactics as the Creationists.  As an interesting aside, a decade ago there was a movement to make "critical thinking" part of the public school curriculum.  Sounds like something everyone could support doesn't it?  But when a few schools actually tried to implement it, the instructional materials they were offered were critical of only one thing, evolution.  Suddenly secular organizations which had been advocates for critical thinking had switch sides and oppose these classes.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

> Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon

That depends on what you mean by climate skepticism. I'm nor skeptical that the world is warmer now than it was a century ago. And I'm not skeptical that human activity is responsible for at least part of that warming. But I am skeptical that climate warming is necessarily a bad thing. And if it is a bad thing I'm very skeptical that the cure proposed by environmentalists isn't worse, far FAR worse, than the disease.

 John K Clark    

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Have you read "The Genocides" by Thomas M Disch?

Super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but only in the same way we try to eradicate aphids from an orchard.

That reminds me a of the excellent movie "Fantastic Planet" (La planète sauvage) based on the book "Oms en série". Last I checked the whole thing is on Youtube.

Jason

 

On 27 November 2014 at 02:42, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

Nice :)

One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

http://xkcd.com/1450/

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

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

[LizR]

Yes I've seen FP, though not for a long time. I seem to remember it's a cartoon (a very good one!)

[Jason Resch]

I haven't personally researched this subject myself sufficiently to have reached any strong opinion on the matter, but I have come to believe that whenever some question in science becomes politicized, it becomes extremely difficult from that point forward for any real progress to be made in that area. Once money, people's jobs, agendas, etc. are on the line, the truth (whatever it might be) takes a distant seat in the back.

A similar thing happened in the food industry when the government got involved in telling people what they should eat. Once the Senate Select Committee on nutrition decided to tell people not to eat saturated fat because it was bad for them it became very difficult to get grant money to research/test the opposing view, and now 40 years, when there is now compelling and sufficient evidence to conclude that fat and saturated fat is harmless if not good for you, and when it has become increasingly likely that advice to eat less was not only counter-productive but a probable cause of the obesity and diabetes epidemic in the United States and over the world, there remains widespread belief that its bad and to be avoided. Food manufacturers still tout the "heart healthiness" of their low-fat preparations, and the first lady has made it an agenda of the government to further reduce fat in schools across the country.

Yet we see a profoundly different message coming from leading researchers:

“For a large percentage of the population, perhaps 30 to 40 percent, low-fat diets are counterproductive. They have the paradoxical effect of making people gain weight.”
Eleftheria Maratos-Flier, Director of obesity research at Harvard's Joslin Diabetes Center

“It is now increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences.”
Frank Hu, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health

“The diet-heart hypothesis has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century.”
George Mann, Johns Hopkins-educated biochemist and physician who co-directed the Framingham  Heart Study (one of the largest studies on the relationship between diet and health)

And of course these researchers are using the outcomes of the latest studies to guide their reasoning:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-fat-and-heart-disease-link/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nina-teicholz-the-last-anti-fat-crusaders-1414536989
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11246112/High-fat-diets-not-as-dangerous-as-high-carbohydrate-plans-claim-scientists.html

(If anyone would like more information on this matter, I'd be happy to provide it)

As I said, I haven't developed a strong opinion in regards to anthropogenic global warming, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a "climate change denier" though perhaps some would take the fact that my mind is not settled as sufficient reason to put me in that bucket. However, there are some reasons that I remain unconvinced. Among them:

1. The fact that the question is so heavily politicized and that there is so much money involved naturally arouses my suspicion (must take every news article and report with a grain of salt unlike say, a paper on pure number theory)

2. Lack of consensus on what the effects will be: in the 1970s the fear was global cooling, in the 1990s it was global warming, and when neither long-term trend established itself it has since become climate change and extreme whether, but statistical studies have found no statistically abnormal increase in extreme weather events.

3. Failure of models: Early climate models projected an increase in global temperatures over the last 10 years, but those increases never materialized. (As a side-note, I used to find the existence of models which could accurately follow past temperature changes used to be extremely convincing with regards to the dangers of global warming, but years later I found after experimenting with developing currency trading algorithms that through training, genetic algorithms, etc. that it was relatively easy to create models that were exceptionally good at reproducing past trends, yet they utterly failed to have any predictive power. After this experience, I came to realize that generating models that match a given trend is easy, but that is no indication of the model's legitimacy)

4. Recent exposes on the corner cutting and general bad practices of climatologists involved in developing reports for policy makers.

If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, does that mean we should adopt a Kyoto (or similar) proposal? This is even less clear. This would require all of the following to be true:

1. Climate change exists

2. Human CO2 emissions are a significant factor in that climate change

3. Counteractive effects (clouds, biosphere) are understood and won't be enough to compensate for the excess CO2

4. We understand the general direction of what that climate change will be

5. The general direction of that change is more negative than positive and should be avoided

6. Reducing CO2 emissions is the best course of action to prevent the negative occurrence

7. Reductions that are possible will lead to a greater good for humanity and the world than the costs associated with those reductions

Items 6 and 7 are the ones I am most apt to disagree with. Geo-engineering technologies are not only far more promising in being able to able to provide humanity with the tools to stabilize the environment, but they're also much much cheaper than the associated economic costs of rationing cheap energy. All of these global warming projections over the next 50 - 100 years fail to take into account the exponential rate of growth in the power of technology and what the implications will be for opening new avenues for solving/controlling the problem, should it turn out to be one.

Are humans having a profound and negative impact on the ecology of the rest of the planet? Almost certainly. We consume/control 40% of the planet's terrestrial photosynthesis capability, thus making life very difficult for the millions of other species who have to fight over the rest. Should we make every effort to conserve the limited resources we have? Nothing good comes from waste or excess. Would the advent of safe and cheap nuclear (or other) power bring enormous benefits to humanity and improve air quality? Again, I also think the answer is yes. But will political efforts or social movements that have the goal of slightly cutting back the rates of fossil fuel consumption save life on earth? I doubt it. If we are in peril, it will be technological change, not political change, that saves us.

Jason

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 5:48 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

> Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon

That depends on what you mean by climate skepticism. I'm nor skeptical that the world is warmer now than it was a century ago. And I'm not skeptical that human activity is responsible for at least part of that warming. But I am skeptical that climate warming is necessarily a bad thing. And if it is a bad thing I'm very skeptical that the cure proposed by environmentalists isn't worse, far FAR worse, than the disease.

 

John – you are in a minority I believe. Most skeptics (as they many skeptics of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis seem to like to term themselves… at least in the USA) question both that any global warming is occurring; and secondly that if it is occurring it is driven by natural climate variation – for example cyclic variations in the earth’s orbit and tilt (which have been falsified as being potential drivers of the recent temperature anomaly).

You seem to accept both that the earth is warming at a geologically (and on ecological time scales as well) extremely rapid rate AND that human generated emissions of CO2, CH4 as well as other more exotic greenhouse gases are at least partially responsible (if AGW contributes just a small fraction of global warming then what other climate drivers do you propose as providing the rest of the driving force for climate change? If AGW contributes by far most of the driving force for recent climate change then why phrase your position in this manner “human activity is responsible for at least part of that warming.”)

In this basic acceptance you differ from most climate skeptics who doubt even the basic datasets… who quote “facts” that they found on some denier website that got them from some other denier institute that got them from some denier blog… and round we go to factually nowhere.

As for your sanguine attitude that global warming (along with the inevitable attendant sea rise and flooding of the most densely populated and agriculturally productive regions of the planet) is not so bad… you are entitled to your opinions, as I am entitled to the opinion that we should be very, very careful before experimenting with the basic equilibrium states of our planetary biosphere.

We only have one single planet to experiment with; a certain cautionary principle should apply before we induce potentially irreversible changes in our planets climatic systems… even if some amongst us feel like it might not be a bad thing.

-Chris

 

John K Clark    

[meekerdb]

On 12/9/2014 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

...

As I said, I haven't developed a strong opinion in regards to anthropogenic global warming, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a "climate change denier" though perhaps some would take the fact that my mind is not settled as sufficient reason to put me in that bucket. However, there are some reasons that I remain unconvinced. Among them:

1. The fact that the question is so heavily politicized and that there is so much money involved naturally arouses my suspicion (must take every news article and report with a grain of salt unlike say, a paper on pure number theory)

The money is essentially all on the side of the fossil fuel industry.  Nobody gets rich being a serious climatologist.

2. Lack of consensus on what the effects will be: in the 1970s the fear was global cooling,

There was never such "fear".  It was a popular book based on the cyclic ice ages that "predicted" a new ice-age (eventually).  It has been picked up as by AGW deniers as proof that climatologists don't know anything.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/11/10/203320/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

in the 1990s it was global warming, and when neither long-term trend established itself it has since become climate change and extreme whether, but statistical studies have found no statistically abnormal increase in extreme weather events.

Why cherry pick extreme weather as the indicator?  There's plenty of empirical evidence for global warming, based on the most cutting edge statistical analysis and data and conducted by a former AGW skeptic. http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

3. Failure of models: Early climate models projected an increase in global temperatures over the last 10 years, but those increases never materialized.

Ten years is very short in climate terms.  And global warming doesn't necessarily imply global temperature increase.  A lot of ice can melt without the temperature increasing.  http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf

(As a side-note, I used to find the existence of models which could accurately follow past temperature changes used to be extremely convincing with regards to the dangers of global warming, but years later I found after experimenting with developing currency trading algorithms that through training, genetic algorithms, etc. that it was relatively easy to create models that were exceptionally good at reproducing past trends, yet they utterly failed to have any predictive power. After this experience, I came to realize that generating models that match a given trend is easy, but that is no indication of the model's legitimacy)

So you're accusing climate scientists of using adaptive curve fitting algorithms, rather than physics based models?  And the simple calculations of Arrhenius in 1890 no longer apply?

4. Recent exposes on the corner cutting and general bad practices of climatologists involved in developing reports for policy makers.

What are these "bad practices"?  The "exposes" I've read have been cheap nit-picking by fossil fuel industry flacks.

If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, does that mean we should adopt a Kyoto (or similar) proposal? This is even less clear. This would require all of the following to be true:

Why not add:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 
2. Burning fossil fuel puts CO2 into the air. 
3. Human burning of fossil fuel has almost doubled atmospheric CO2 - even though about half of that produced has been absorbed in the oceans.

1. Climate change exists

2. Human CO2 emissions are a significant factor in that climate change

3. Counteractive effects (clouds, biosphere) are understood and won't be enough to compensate for the excess CO2

Or they will be in the direction of amplifying the effect (e.g. Clouds retain heat at night. Bacteria will turn tundra in methane when it thaws).

4. We understand the general direction of what that climate change will be

5. The general direction of that change is more negative than positive and should be avoided

The general direction is warmer, as shown already by Arrhenius.  The question is how much warmer and how bad will it be?

6. Reducing CO2 emissions is the best course of action to prevent the negative occurrence

Not necessarily.  We could artificially reflect more sunlight by putting sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere.  But someone who is suspicious of climate modeling might be suspicious that there can be unforseen consequences in such enormous climate engineering.

7. Reductions that are possible will lead to a greater good for humanity and the world than the costs associated with those reductions

Cost to whom? 

Items 6 and 7 are the ones I am most apt to disagree with. Geo-engineering technologies are not only far more promising in being able to able to provide humanity with the tools to stabilize the environment, but they're also much much cheaper than the associated economic costs of rationing cheap energy.

You don't know any of that.  And drastically reducing CO2 emission is not the same as rationing cheap energy.  Energy can be produced by nuclear, solar, and wind as cheaply as by fossil fuel - IF the fossil fuel industry had to pay to clean up its pollution.

All of these global warming projections over the next 50 - 100 years fail to take into account the exponential rate of growth in the power of technology and what the implications will be for opening new avenues for solving/controlling the problem, should it turn out to be one.

The IPCC reports include different scenarios assuming different technological and cultural repsonses.

Are humans having a profound and negative impact on the ecology of the rest of the planet? Almost certainly. We consume/control 40% of the planet's terrestrial photosynthesis capability, thus making life very difficult for the millions of other species who have to fight over the rest. Should we make every effort to conserve the limited resources we have? Nothing good comes from waste or excess. Would the advent of safe and cheap nuclear (or other) power bring enormous benefits to humanity and improve air quality? Again, I also think the answer is yes. But will political efforts or social movements that have the goal of slightly cutting back the rates of fossil fuel consumption save life on earth? I doubt it. If we are in peril, it will be technological change, not political change, that saves us.

Politicians are never for change that would inconvenience their donors.

Brent

[Richard Ruquist]

I do not doubt that increased CO2 in the atm causes global warming

and that nowadays much of it comes from burning fossil fuels.

Yet my opinion of the Vostok ice core data is that 

when global temperatures got to their present levels,

rapid global warming abruptly turned into less rapid global cooling

and eventual descent into another ice age.

I believe the mechanism is that global warming makes the jet stream more unstable.

When I was young some 50-60 years ago, 

the jet stream essentially went directly across the USA.

Now it dips down into Texas and seemingly stabilizes there

as it just fits the continental USA. The resulting snow cover in the winter

changes the earth's albedo and may be the causal factor 

in a flip from warming to cooling.

I just heard a week or so ago on NPR that Siberia is experiencing record snowfalls.

So apparently stabilization of the jet stream over the USA, if that is indeed true,

may stabilize it across the entire globe. Time will tell.

The Republicans should be willing to pay me good money for such a theory.

But I hate what they are doing to the USA so much 

that I hope you all will keep this possibility a secret.

Richard

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:58 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/9/2014 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

...

As I said, I haven't developed a strong opinion in regards to anthropogenic global warming, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a "climate change denier" though perhaps some would take the fact that my mind is not settled as sufficient reason to put me in that bucket. However, there are some reasons that I remain unconvinced. Among them:

1. The fact that the question is so heavily politicized and that there is so much money involved naturally arouses my suspicion (must take every news article and report with a grain of salt unlike say, a paper on pure number theory)

The money is essentially all on the side of the fossil fuel industry.  Nobody gets rich being a serious climatologist.

That may be, but it isn't clear to me what outcome the oil companies would benefit the most from. The naive view is that all oil companies must be against this because it limits how much money they can make each year, but a more nuanced view might take into consideration the finite supply all fossil fuel companies possess, and see that they might actually maximize their valuation if the resources they control are rationed.

Also, though climatologists don't get rich, many of them are employed by or receive grants to work on this very problem. If they declared "there's nothing to see here looks like we were wrong" how many of them would still be employed in this field?

Genuine science is concerned with trying to disprove prevailing theories. Climate science is in the unenviable position that our survival might depend on trying to instead convince everyone of the veracity of the prevailing theory. Under such circumstances, real science can't be done. You can tell a scientific field is especially sick when you see research institutions / governments making it a policy to refuse to give research money to those advocating hypotheses counter to the accepted consensus.

 

2. Lack of consensus on what the effects will be: in the 1970s the fear was global cooling,

There was never such "fear".  It was a popular book based on the cyclic ice ages that "predicted" a new ice-age (eventually).  It has been picked up as by AGW deniers as proof that climatologists don't know anything.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/11/10/203320/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

Interesting, thanks for this information.

 

in the 1990s it was global warming, and when neither long-term trend established itself it has since become climate change and extreme whether, but statistical studies have found no statistically abnormal increase in extreme weather events.

Why cherry pick extreme weather as the indicator?  There's plenty of empirical evidence for global warming, based on the most cutting edge statistical analysis and data and conducted by a former AGW skeptic. http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

If the temperature increase was 1 C in the last 50 years, what are the latest best projections (in your opinion) for the next century? If its on the order of a 2-3 C, I think we have far bigger problems in the immediate time frame to worry about. Actually running out of oil would have far more immediately disastrous consequences in my opinion. Personally I believe 100 years from now our civilization as we know it will no longer exist: either because we had an apocalypse (mass die off / total extinction / second dark age), or because we will have transcended our biology and merged with machines. Either way, Earth will be able to heal herself again soon. The present exponential rate of growth in the consumption of the finite resources on our planet will necessarily come to an end within a short time from now. The question is whether or not we'll reach that point of technological transcendence before the otherwise inevitable apocalypse. The next couple of decades will be critical.

3. Failure of models: Early climate models projected an increase in global temperatures over the last 10 years, but those increases never materialized.

Ten years is very short in climate terms.  And global warming doesn't necessarily imply global temperature increase.  A lot of ice can melt without the temperature increasing.  http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf

These graphs make the pause a little more clear (which appears unprecedented going back to 1880):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#mediaviewer/File:Warming_since_1880_yearly.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#mediaviewer/File:Warming_since_1970.jpg

I don't think such a pause disproves the theory, there have been many such pauses and temporary reverals in the past, but that no climatologist's model (to my knowledge) predicted this suggests to me that our existing models and understanding of all the factors that determine global temperature are incomplete.

 

(As a side-note, I used to find the existence of models which could accurately follow past temperature changes used to be extremely convincing with regards to the dangers of global warming, but years later I found after experimenting with developing currency trading algorithms that through training, genetic algorithms, etc. that it was relatively easy to create models that were exceptionally good at reproducing past trends, yet they utterly failed to have any predictive power. After this experience, I came to realize that generating models that match a given trend is easy, but that is no indication of the model's legitimacy)

So you're accusing climate scientists of using adaptive curve fitting algorithms, rather than physics based models? 

Even if no climatologist used best-fit finding models, there would naturally be this selection effect: those that succeed in creating good models publish, and those that don't either keep working on their models until they get one that seems to work or they give up and never publish anything.

 

And the simple calculations of Arrhenius in 1890 no longer apply?

I wasn't familiar with Arrhenius's formula, but I looked it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[12] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2014) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C.

While his formula may be simple, it appears determining the correct constants to plug in is anything but (we still haven't determined where it falls between 1.5 C and 4.5 C) and with that kind of range, projected warming over the next 100 years could be anything from barely noticed to very serious.

 

4. Recent exposes on the corner cutting and general bad practices of climatologists involved in developing reports for policy makers.

What are these "bad practices"?  The "exposes" I've read have been cheap nit-picking by fossil fuel industry flacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1
This what I was referring to in particular. But also differences in language between the more detailed sections of the IPCC report and the summary for policy makers (which carried over none of the doubts or uncertainties expressed in the more detailed sections). I think one gets to the point where they assume everyone who disagrees with them is a "fossil fuel industry flack" then you're no longer practicing science, but dogma. And eventually you get to a point where everyone who cares about their reputation has to worry about straying too far from that accepted dogma or face being ostracized. This breeds a field where there is no dissenting opinion, and no scientific progress (like what happened to nutrition science when it became politicized, and again for the same reason: we have to come to an immediate conclusion now, people are dying of heart disease! -- the message had to have the air of authority and certitude, or else it wouldn't be accepted, yet it was based on what was nothing but an untested hypothesis. I think climate scientists today are in the same position of having to feign more certainty than is actually justified by their models and data, to provide a united front against dissenting opinions -- (albeit with the best of intentions in their mind) -- to save lives)

 

If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, does that mean we should adopt a Kyoto (or similar) proposal? This is even less clear. This would require all of the following to be true:

Why not add:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 
2. Burning fossil fuel puts CO2 into the air. 
3. Human burning of fossil fuel has almost doubled atmospheric CO2 - even though about half of that produced has been absorbed in the oceans.

I argee with those

 

1. Climate change exists

2. Human CO2 emissions are a significant factor in that climate change

3. Counteractive effects (clouds, biosphere) are understood and won't be enough to compensate for the excess CO2

Or they will be in the direction of amplifying the effect (e.g. Clouds retain heat at night. Bacteria will turn tundra in methane when it thaws).

Right, I find such run-away self-feedback type of disturbances to be much more alarming than the predicted slow increases. I think climatologists could get much more attention if they could identify a tipping point that we are close to exceeding, then talking about a couple of degree average change 100 years from now. That said, I tend to doubt we're near any tipping points now, since random fluctuations from year to year swing rather widely already.

 

4. We understand the general direction of what that climate change will be

5. The general direction of that change is more negative than positive and should be avoided

The general direction is warmer, as shown already by Arrhenius.  The question is how much warmer and how bad will it be?

Given the data you showed above I agree the change will likely be positive temperature increase.

 

6. Reducing CO2 emissions is the best course of action to prevent the negative occurrence

Not necessarily. 

I was not advocating position 6, but I included it in the list of assumptions that one must make to think that the Kyoto Protocol is a good idea. I agree wholeheartedly that Geo-engineering, like injecting sulfur into the atmosphere or other similar approaches, would be vastly more effective measures. Not only would we have finer grain control over something that takes 100 years to go in or go out, but it would be much cheaper, and we can adapt it to the actual effects (rather than trying to control it according to imprecise models with a control stick we can only push forwards or backwards by 5% at a time, and which has a time delay of a century).

 

We could artificially reflect more sunlight by putting sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere.  But someone who is suspicious of climate modeling might be suspicious that there can be unforseen consequences in such enormous climate engineering.

From the Simpsons:

Suddenly, the lizards glide to the ground, where they start to eradicate pigeons in Springfield. Since the town considered the pigeons to be a nuisance, they are delighted with the fact that the lizards have eaten all the pigeons. As a result, Bart is thanked and honored by Mayor Quimby with a loganberry scented candle. Lisa worries that the town will now become infested by lizards rather than the pigeons, but Skinner assures her that they will send in Chinese Needle Snakes, then snake-eating gorillas, and then "when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."

 

7. Reductions that are possible will lead to a greater good for humanity and the world than the costs associated with those reductions

Cost to whom? 

The world economy, and probably with the highest relative cost paid by those in developing countries. In an extreme and unrealistic model that demonstrates the cost/benefit situation:
Should a poor person in India be denied affordable gas so that a rich person in Miami in 2100's beach-front house isn't washed away?

Of course that can be turned around:

Should a jet setting business man be allowed to fly his private plane knowing it will flood the farmland in India in 2100?

The problem is we don't know if there will be any substantial flooding in 2100 or not, but we know there are economic costs associated with either preventing the poor person from affording fuel, or the rich person from flying his jet. I think if humanity survives to 2100, the technology to address/reverse any environmental damage will be trivially accomplished with self-replicating nano-bots or reflective von-neuman probes in orbit, or anything similar.

 

Items 6 and 7 are the ones I am most apt to disagree with. Geo-engineering technologies are not only far more promising in being able to able to provide humanity with the tools to stabilize the environment, but they're also much much cheaper than the associated economic costs of rationing cheap energy.

You don't know any of that.

The estimated cost of the reduced emissions is estimated to be in the billions. The estimated cost of a few thousand cloud ships will be pennies on the dollar compared to that.

 

  And drastically reducing CO2 emission is not the same as rationing cheap energy.  Energy can be produced by nuclear, solar, and wind as cheaply as by fossil fuel - IF the fossil fuel industry had to pay to clean up its pollution.

If this new energy technology can take over in 20 years (nano-engineered cheap and efficient solar cells everywhere, for example) then is there any reason to worry about CO2 emissions 100 years from now? How can climate models ever hope to predict what technological advancements will be made in that intervening time? (Solar energy use has been roughly doubling each year, and so we're only a couple more doubling away from it solving all the CO2 problems anyway).

 

All of these global warming projections over the next 50 - 100 years fail to take into account the exponential rate of growth in the power of technology and what the implications will be for opening new avenues for solving/controlling the problem, should it turn out to be one.

The IPCC reports include different scenarios assuming different technological and cultural repsonses.

In any of them, were cultural responses, rather than technological advances, important to the outcome?

 

Are humans having a profound and negative impact on the ecology of the rest of the planet? Almost certainly. We consume/control 40% of the planet's terrestrial photosynthesis capability, thus making life very difficult for the millions of other species who have to fight over the rest. Should we make every effort to conserve the limited resources we have? Nothing good comes from waste or excess. Would the advent of safe and cheap nuclear (or other) power bring enormous benefits to humanity and improve air quality? Again, I also think the answer is yes. But will political efforts or social movements that have the goal of slightly cutting back the rates of fossil fuel consumption save life on earth? I doubt it. If we are in peril, it will be technological change, not political change, that saves us.

Politicians are never for change that would inconvenience their donors.

I certainly agree with that.

Jason

[Bruno Marchal]

That is the root of the problems (be it Israel, cannabis, climate change, etc.).

But that points to a solution: no more donors, except our taxes. Lobbying? OK. Financial lobbying: that should be forbidden. And fake lobbying (like it is obvious in the petrol/cannabis file) should be punished.

Bruno

Brent

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

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Dec 2014, at 18:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:09 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

 

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

 

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

 

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

 

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?  

 

It certainly seems so based on a sampling of their output. The MO of climate skeptics – in my experience -- is to grab on to some anomaly or discrepancy in some dataset (or some puffed up sinister sounding largely made up scandal, such as Climategate for example). Giving them a toe hold to launch into an attack on the entire edifice of climate science based on some cherry picked data. Often it is anecdotal data – say an unusually cold winter… anything that can make good copy and sow doubt in scientifically illiterate minds.

I see little scientific rigor, or intellectual honesty, operating within the skeptic community; seems to me mostly made up of political operatives and PR marketing spin types that only deals in convenient cherry picked facts (ignoring broad swaths of data) and that often merely incestuously repeats baseless accusations that reverberate around the many Kock brother funded archipelago of astroturf organizations. (An American expression for fake grass roots organizations – e.g. astroturf being fake grass. Grass roots organization, is another American expression for spontaneously rising broad based movements arising as a genuine expression of the people’s will.)

Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon, funded largely by powerful fossil energy interests that are acting to preserve the future value of their large carbon holdings.

-Chris

Henri Ford already asked why using unsustainable plant cadaver instead of sustainable hemp, as we did up to that point. The answer has been given by a conspiracy which has been able to make us all believe that hemp, the most cultivated plant ever, was a "dangerous drug" which should be made illegal everywhere on the planet. The oil industry, together with the pharma-industry, is build on lies from the very start. Hemp has been made illegal the day the first industrial hemp handling machine was build.

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

 

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

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

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 > You seem to accept both that the earth is warming at a geologically (and on ecological time scales as well) extremely rapid rate

Rapid, but not unprecedentedly rapid.  

> if AGW

Don't forget IHA.

> contributes just a small fraction of global warming then what other climate drivers do you propose as providing the rest of the driving force for climate change?

I don't know, whatever super complex factors that have caused the temperature of the Earth to go up and down so radically over the billions of years that existed before humans ever evolved I guess.

> As for your sanguine attitude that global warming (along with the inevitable attendant sea rise and flooding of the most densely populated and agriculturally productive regions of the planet) is not so bad…

The Earth has been at a vast number of temperatures in the last billion, or even in the last million years, do you have any reason to think that the temperature it was in 100 years ago was the exact temperature that would maximize human happiness and productivity?   

 

> you are entitled to your opinions

Thank you.  And you are entitled to my opinions too.

 

> we should be very, very careful before experimenting with the basic equilibrium states of our planetary biosphere.

Forget it, we gave up that option long before the pyramids were built. It was not a coincidence that the megafauna of North America and South America and Australia that had existed for many millions of years disappeared almost immediately after humans visited those continents for the first time.  And today there are over 7 billion people on the Earth, never before have there been that many large animals of the same large species, nothing ever even came close. To keep that many animals alive radical things are going to be needed to be done, to also keep them happy even more radical things are going to be needed, like directly or indirectly diverting nearly 40% of the planet's photosynthetic output to human use. It would be astonishing if that sort of intervention did not cause global changes of some sort to the climate, but short of asking 5 or 6 billion people to kill themselves there is simply no alternative.

And don't talk to me about windmills, if this is a serious problem it needs a serious solution, you need more than moonbeams and lollipops to keep 7 billion people alive. 

  John K Clark

[Alberto G. Corona]

There are not so many people. with the density of New York, all of them could live a small state of USA.  more or less

There are vast wastelands and deserts. There are plenty of energy in the universe waiting to be used. And the space is infinite, by the way.

The malthusian obsession for space and resources is more ancient than malthus. It is as old as human exist. scarcity and the impression that resources will finish exist fo as long as humans can plan the future. The first humans moved because the game and the vegetables got exhausted .

So the worries for space and resources are at the same time rational and irrational. Are rational considered locally. Are irrational when they are expanded in time and space to the humanity and history as a whole.

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

--

Alberto.

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:37 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

On 09 Dec 2014, at 18:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:09 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

 

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

 

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

 

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

 

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?  

 

It certainly seems so based on a sampling of their output. The MO of climate skeptics – in my experience -- is to grab on to some anomaly or discrepancy in some dataset (or some puffed up sinister sounding largely made up scandal, such as Climategate for example). Giving them a toe hold to launch into an attack on the entire edifice of climate science based on some cherry picked data. Often it is anecdotal data – say an unusually cold winter… anything that can make good copy and sow doubt in scientifically illiterate minds.

I see little scientific rigor, or intellectual honesty, operating within the skeptic community; seems to me mostly made up of political operatives and PR marketing spin types that only deals in convenient cherry picked facts (ignoring broad swaths of data) and that often merely incestuously repeats baseless accusations that reverberate around the many Kock brother funded archipelago of astroturf organizations. (An American expression for fake grass roots organizations – e.g. astroturf being fake grass. Grass roots organization, is another American expression for spontaneously rising broad based movements arising as a genuine expression of the people’s will.)

Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon, funded largely by powerful fossil energy interests that are acting to preserve the future value of their large carbon holdings.

-Chris

 

 

Henri Ford already asked why using unsustainable plant cadaver instead of sustainable hemp, as we did up to that point. The answer has been given by a conspiracy which has been able to make us all believe that hemp, the most cultivated plant ever, was a "dangerous drug" which should be made illegal everywhere on the planet. The oil industry, together with the pharma-industry, is build on lies from the very start. Hemp has been made illegal the day the first industrial hemp handling machine was build.

 

It also competed with the paper pulp industry, hemp makes superior paper by the way… the US Constitution is written on hemp paper. Marijuana is legal, now, where I live in Washington state.

-Chris

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:41 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

There are not so many people. with the density of New York, all of them could live a small state of USA.  more or less

There are vast wastelands and deserts. There are plenty of energy in the universe waiting to be used. And the space is infinite, by the way.

The malthusian obsession for space and resources is more ancient than malthus. It is as old as human exist. scarcity and the impression that resources will finish exist fo as long as humans can plan the future. The first humans moved because the game and the vegetables got exhausted .

So the worries for space and resources are at the same time rational and irrational. Are rational considered locally. Are irrational when they are expanded in time and space to the humanity and history as a whole.

 

Space is infinite and mostly empty. And to get to it you first have to rocket out from the Earth’s gravity well. A one liter bottle of water costs around $10,000 to get to low earth orbit, $20,000 to get to geosynchronous orbit and $50,000 to land on the moon. That is the cost for a single bottle of water.

Barring some incredible future technology – say a space elevator -- the costs of getting off the earth and in to orbit and beyond will remain astronomically high.

The universe may be infinite, but our place in it is very finite. We must live within our planets limits, not the universes ultimate limits, because we have no practical way of reaching those resources.

-Chris

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014  Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are not so many people. with the density of New York, all of them could live a small state of USA.  more or less There are vast wastelands and deserts. There are plenty of energy in the universe waiting to be used. And the space is infinite, by the way.

I agree with all of that. Unfortunately environmentalists would not agree, but then environmentalists are not serious people, they are anti-intellectual elitists who's advice if followed would kill billions.

  John K Clark

[Chris de Morsella]

---

From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: real A.I.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014  Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are not so many people. with the density of New York, all of them could live a small state of USA.  more or less There are vast wastelands and deserts. There are plenty of energy in the universe waiting to be used. And the space is infinite, by the way.

I agree with all of that. Unfortunately environmentalists would not agree, but then environmentalists are not serious people, they are anti-intellectual elitists who's advice if followed would kill billions.

You make much noise John... factually challenged rhetorical noise; it merely serves to make you seem like you are an unthinking idiot when you blather on like this, in these terms.

-Chris

  John K Clark

[Alberto G. Corona]

Yes. For me it is clear that the desire of a totalitarian utopia with a form of return to nature and the obsession of control are deeply in the human nature when it run wild. For me it is clearly a regression of the tribe and their membership rites, where everyone is controlled by everyone and freedom is unthinkable. Only that the tribu is the whole humanity and the suppression of freedom should be made by a global police state.

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

--

Alberto.

[meekerdb]

On 12/10/2014 12:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Politicians are never for change that would inconvenience their donors.

That is the root of the problems (be it Israel, cannabis, climate change, etc.).

But that points to a solution: no more donors, except our taxes. Lobbying? OK. Financial lobbying: that should be forbidden. And fake lobbying (like it is obvious in the petrol/cannabis file) should be punished.

But who decides what's fake?  Can I volunteer to be king?

Brent

[spudb...@aol.com]

Agreed, or so they appear. Its like enabling a new computer system. One doesn't shut down the old system, until the new is up and running. Many of them want a malthusian death spiral and they want it now. Nature is wondrous, but brutal, and deadly. 

I agree with all of that. Unfortunately environmentalists would not agree, but then environmentalists are not serious people, they are anti-intellectual elitists who's advice if followed would kill billions.

  John K Clark

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>

[meekerdb]

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Henri Ford already asked why using unsustainable plant cadaver instead of sustainable hemp, as we did up to that point.

?? Hemp has never been a sustainable alternative to oil as an energy source.  When we burn oil we're using the energy stored in plant matter over millions of years.  Hemp doesn't grow any faster than corn or wheat or trees - none of which grow fast enough to replace oil as we use it now.

The answer has been given by a conspiracy which has been able to make us all believe that hemp, the most cultivated plant ever, was a "dangerous drug" which should be made illegal everywhere on the planet.

Actually growing hemp was encouraged by the U.S. government before World War II because it was used to make rope.  The marijuana that is cultivated now for it's pyschotropic effects is less suitable for rope.

The oil industry, together with the pharma-industry, is build on lies from the very start.

There's no lie that oil provides easily used and transported energy and has a high return-on-energy-investment.  It replaced coal as a cleaner more efficient fuel.

Hemp has been made illegal the day the first industrial hemp handling machine was build.

There were machines for making hemp into rope long before it was classified as in illegal drug.  The "war on drugs" is a relatively recent phenomenon - and one that I think will fade away soon.  I think you place far to much significance on it.  In the whole scheme of things the illegality of marijuana is a very minor problem.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 12/10/2014 9:17 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 > You seem to accept both that the earth is warming at a geologically (and on ecological time scales as well) extremely rapid rate

Rapid, but not unprecedentedly rapid.  

Mere assertion. What evidence can you cite that in the past the Earth's temperature has risen more than 0.7degK in 40yrs?

> if AGW

Don't forget IHA.

> contributes just a small fraction of global warming then what other climate drivers do you propose as providing the rest of the driving force for climate change?

I don't know, whatever super complex factors that have caused the temperature of the Earth to go up and down so radically over the billions of years that existed before humans ever evolved I guess.

But in this case we don't need to look for "super complex factors".  We know exactly how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and we know exactly how it traps heat.  The only uncertainties are in the positive feedback factors, like water vapor, snow cover, methane production,...  That's where the 1.5 to 4.5degK range comes from.  The main factor for the temperature variations on the scale of millions of years is the change in solar intensity and the Earth's orbit.  But those are ruled out as causes of the changes over the last 40yrs by direct measurement of isolation.

> As for your sanguine attitude that global warming (along with the inevitable attendant sea rise and flooding of the most densely populated and agriculturally productive regions of the planet) is not so bad…

The Earth has been at a vast number of temperatures in the last billion, or even in the last million years, do you have any reason to think that the temperature it was in 100 years ago was the exact temperature that would maximize human happiness and productivity?   

Do you have any evidence that raising the temperature 4.5degK will not be disastrous for many millions of people?

 

> you are entitled to your opinions

Thank you.  And you are entitled to my opinions too.

 

> we should be very, very careful before experimenting with the basic equilibrium states of our planetary biosphere.

Forget it, we gave up that option long before the pyramids were built. It was not a coincidence that the megafauna of North America and South America and Australia that had existed for many millions of years disappeared almost immediately after humans visited those continents for the first time.  And today there are over 7 billion people on the Earth, never before have there been that many large animals of the same large species, nothing ever even came close. To keep that many animals alive radical things are going to be needed to be done, to also keep them happy even more radical things are going to be needed, like directly or indirectly diverting nearly 40% of the planet's photosynthetic output to human use. It would be astonishing if that sort of intervention did not cause global changes of some sort to the climate, but short of asking 5 or 6 billion people to kill themselves there is simply no alternative.

Stupid hyperbole.  Nobody is asking anybody to kill themselves.

And don't talk to me about windmills, if this is a serious problem it needs a serious solution, you need more than moonbeams and lollipops to keep 7 billion people alive.

Yes, it needs nuclear powerplants and solar powerplants and population control and increased power efficiency.  But so long as deniers like you obfuscate the problem as "just natural" and "hotter's really better" the oil company lobbyists will win the propaganda war and nothing will be done.

Brent

[zib...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:02:00 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 5:48 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

> Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon

That depends on what you mean by climate skepticism. I'm nor skeptical that the world is warmer now than it was a century ago. And I'm not skeptical that human activity is responsible for at least part of that warming.

In the hypothetical there worrying developments in some empirical reading, regarding a profoundly complex dynamical system (say, it was the most complex system in the known universe, and the only one of its kind, known. About which almost nothing was understood. 

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

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

Here we are, about 25 years into the era of heavily backed climate study. put aside for a moment your scepticism. Let's just say, what if you were right in all your concerns. Would that mean science had failed in its duty these last 25 years? No because that's not a way to measure. Knowledge of the climate system, new fields, new mathematical approaches,

new approaches to handing massive datasets, new methods for reinforcing substantial extensions and backfill of enabler fields like statistics. Climate was like, this vague cloud of abstraction 25 years ago. Climatologists have accumulated an enormous body of knowledge, skills, specialisms et. Enormous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't it a little ironic, that relativity....a stable fields not connected with any time critical urgencies, you should regard as imperative everyone get behind science and stop being so daft.

But climate science....a situation where there is roughly 10 or 12% probability (something like) that warming will feedback nightmare, sending temperate upward 6 DEGREES. You should regard this as the right moment for everyone to have their own theory, and act out traitorously against Science when should have had its back.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Dec 2014, at 19:08, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:37 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

On 09 Dec 2014, at 18:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:09 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: real A.I.

 

 

 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

 

You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic". The original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly sliding into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of the majority.

 

Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate change sceptics" and suchlike,

 

I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge. 

 

who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you can't prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."

 

Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?  

 

It certainly seems so based on a sampling of their output. The MO of climate skeptics – in my experience -- is to grab on to some anomaly or discrepancy in some dataset (or some puffed up sinister sounding largely made up scandal, such as Climategate for example). Giving them a toe hold to launch into an attack on the entire edifice of climate science based on some cherry picked data. Often it is anecdotal data – say an unusually cold winter… anything that can make good copy and sow doubt in scientifically illiterate minds.

I see little scientific rigor, or intellectual honesty, operating within the skeptic community; seems to me mostly made up of political operatives and PR marketing spin types that only deals in convenient cherry picked facts (ignoring broad swaths of data) and that often merely incestuously repeats baseless accusations that reverberate around the many Kock brother funded archipelago of astroturf organizations. (An American expression for fake grass roots organizations – e.g. astroturf being fake grass. Grass roots organization, is another American expression for spontaneously rising broad based movements arising as a genuine expression of the people’s will.)

Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon, funded largely by powerful fossil energy interests that are acting to preserve the future value of their large carbon holdings.

-Chris

 

 

Henri Ford already asked why using unsustainable plant cadaver instead of sustainable hemp, as we did up to that point. The answer has been given by a conspiracy which has been able to make us all believe that hemp, the most cultivated plant ever, was a "dangerous drug" which should be made illegal everywhere on the planet. The oil industry, together with the pharma-industry, is build on lies from the very start. Hemp has been made illegal the day the first industrial hemp handling machine was build.

 

It also competed with the paper pulp industry, hemp makes superior paper by the way… the US Constitution is written on hemp paper.

Yes, anyone can verify in any library (with enough old books) that the books of last centuries last longer than the book of the 20th centuries. We use Hemp for paper since a long time, and the cost is much less than with wood. The wood industry was part of the collusion. The steal industry too. Hemp was virtually a powerful competitor for all derivative of oil, at much less cost.

I found once a video showing the interview of old people who voted for the illegalisation of marijuana confessing they did not know that it was hemp. Indeed, even at that time, people knew that it is easy to produce hemp without psychotropic quality. It was a total set up to impose petrol on the market.

I just saw an ad for an electric car made in Hemp. Looks nice, but I would prefer it uses hemp fuel, for the principle.

Marijuana is legal, now, where I live in Washington state.

It is very nice. I hope the feds will eventually stop the criminal comedy. I still don't understand how hemp has been made illegal so quickly in *all* countries around the world. That seems still unsolved to me.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

Experts in the field and with the condition that they are not paid by a concerned interest.

All such expertize have concluded that cannabis is far less danegrous than alcohol. Even those commanded by people wanting the prohibition, who unfortunately, dismissed the conclusion, and nominated special governemental studies, published in special affiliated journals or technical reports. 

Cannabis is not a complex subject, like the change of climate and the human responsibility. In the case of cannabis, no scientists studying the plant have come to a conclusion that it is dangerous, compared to alcohol, or even water. The danger of cannabis is like the danger of martian. There are just not even one evidence. It is a complete set up to avoid competition, and eventually to create black markets and underground economy bypassing all possible regulations.

Bruno

Brent

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

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Dec 2014, at 02:44, meekerdb wrote:

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Henri Ford already asked why using unsustainable plant cadaver instead of sustainable hemp, as we did up to that point.

?? Hemp has never been a sustainable alternative to oil as an energy source.  When we burn oil we're using the energy stored in plant matter over millions of years.  Hemp doesn't grow any faster than corn or wheat or trees - none of which grow fast enough to replace oil as we use it now.

This can be debated. But take into account that we might have use both. Also, there are other plants, and Ford did prove that at his time, it was possible to make hemp enough for the automobile industry. Then that industry might have grown slower, or some people would have paid for oil, ... it is hard to judge. henry Ford was aware, with other than it might lead to a desequilibrium in the atmosphere. We might have complement Hemp with nuclear energy,  electicity, etc. If oil was made illegal instead of Hemp, a lot of things would be for the better, including the heath industry, which today is quite rotten by nothing less that mafia.

The answer has been given by a conspiracy which has been able to make us all believe that hemp, the most cultivated plant ever, was a "dangerous drug" which should be made illegal everywhere on the planet.

Actually growing hemp was encouraged by the U.S. government before World War II because it was used to make rope.  The marijuana that is cultivated now for it's pyschotropic effects is less suitable for rope.

We have all variety, but like tomatoes, we specialize them. The people from switzerland did make a variety of Hemp, quite psychotropic, and quite good for fibers and the textile industry. let us smoke the carpet, we will discover the mind-body problem hidden behind!

The oil industry, together with the pharma-industry, is build on lies from the very start.

There's no lie that oil provides easily used and transported energy and has a high return-on-energy-investment.  It replaced coal as a cleaner more efficient fuel.

But it is not recycled, and you know it has lead possibly to a change of climate, and to non degradable plastic, etc.

I ma not for the prohibition of oil, or anything. I am just against systematic misinformation. 

Hemp has been made illegal the day the first industrial hemp handling machine was build.

There were machines for making hemp into rope long before it was classified as in illegal drug.  The "war on drugs" is a relatively recent phenomenon - and one that I think will fade away soon. 

I hope too.

I think you place far to much significance on it.  In the whole scheme of things the illegality of marijuana is a very minor problem.

I disagree. If they can lie so powerfully as make us think that the best known medication is a dangerous drug, asn so quickly, in democracies, then the democracy is in a perillous state. It means the media are not independent. We have the duty to ask proof to the government, and lasting lies shoudl be severely punished. We fight for freedom and democracy, but here the west shows it can be as bad as the worst authoritarin regime. Then when Obama signed the NDAA 2012, the war on terror, and the whole monoidal politics begins to look like the field of health. It means some people invest in the use of money to steal money. This makes the economic subsystem pyramidal. 

I use cannabis to illustrate that phenomenon, because I have the proofs and evidences, but I think it is by far not the only lie. Think about Bush war in Irak for example. The other lies are more delicate to describe, so I stick on the (many) lies on cannabis, to illustrate that bandits got power, and control partially our government.

It is the whole prohibition of drugs which is a lie. I vote for politician of my country, not for international drug dealers.

Bruno

Brent

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

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

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

> What evidence can you cite that in the past the Earth's temperature has risen more than 0.7degK in 40yrs?

 

Except for the Ordovician period 450 million years ago and a few very brief ice ages during the last few hundred thousand years the last billion years has always been warmer than now, occasionally MUCH warmer.  In the last billion years it has never been warmer than during the Carboniferous Era 360 million years ago, and I don't believe life has ever been quite that lush and plentiful again.

> But in this case we don't need to look for "super complex factors".  We know exactly how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and we know exactly how it traps heat.

 

And yet we don't know why during the Ordovician period 450 million years ago there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, about 4400 ppm verses 380 today, but the world was in a severe ice age, much colder than the more recent ice ages we are more familiar with.
 

> The only uncertainties are in the positive feedback factors, like water vapor, snow cover,

Don't misunderstand me, I'm perfectly willing to concede that human activity has had a effect on global climate and will have a even bigger effect in the future, but predicting exactly what things will be like in the future or explaining why there were as they were in the past is not as simple as you seem to think. Cloud cover and snow cover determines how much energy is available to run the entire global climate machine, so uncertainties about them means uncertainties about everything.   

> methane production

And methane is 30 times as effective at producing a greenhouse effect as CO2 is.

 

 > The main factor for the temperature variations on the scale of millions of years is the change in solar intensity and the Earth's orbit.

Did that revelation come to you in a dream? You know why the Earth was super cold 450 million years ago and super hot 360 million years ago and everything in-between since?

> Do you have any evidence that raising the temperature 4.5degK will not be disastrous for many millions of people?

No person who doesn't make his living feeding environmental panic says the global temperature is going to rise 4.5degK anytime soon, but never mind, do you have any evidence that raising the temperature 4.5degK will not be beneficial for many millions of people? Do you have any evidence that the temperature things were at a century ago is the exact temperature things should stay at forever?

 

 >> It was not a coincidence that the megafauna of North America and South America and Australia that had existed for many millions of years disappeared almost immediately after humans visited those continents for the first time.  And today there are over 7 billion people on the Earth, never before have there been that many large animals of the same large species, nothing ever even came close. To keep that many animals alive radical things are going to be needed to be done, to also keep them happy even more radical things are going to be needed, like directly or indirectly diverting nearly 40% of the planet's photosynthetic output to human use. It would be astonishing if that sort of intervention did not cause global changes of some sort to the climate, but short of asking 5 or 6 billion people to kill themselves there is simply no alternative.

> Stupid hyperbole.  Nobody is asking anybody to kill themselves.

They'll never have the guts to come right out and say it, or perhaps they just don't have the brains to think things through, but In effect that is exactly precisely what those moral paragons called "environmentalists" are calling for! They say we should stop using fossil fuel, tear down hydroelectric dams,  and don't even think about using nuclear power; of course with all those energy sources gone we could no longer make artificial fertilizer, but that's OK, environmentalists say we shouldn't be using them anyway. And we shouldn't use pesticides or herbicides either. Oh and we shouldn't use genetically modified crops either even though none has ever hurt anybody, even though they have higher yields than unmodified crops, even though they need much less fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides. So forget about making them prosperous and happy, if we did all that how could we even keep 7 billion people alive? We couldn't, no way no how. But that wouldn't be a problem if 5 or 6 billion people would just have the good manners to die.

  John K Clark

[meekerdb]

On 12/11/2014 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

> What evidence can you cite that in the past the Earth's temperature has risen more than 0.7degK in 40yrs?

 

Except for the Ordovician period 450 million years ago and a few very brief ice ages during the last few hundred thousand years the last billion years has always been warmer than now, occasionally MUCH warmer.  In the last billion years it has never been warmer than during the Carboniferous Era 360 million years ago, and I don't believe life has ever been quite that lush and plentiful again.

Evasive.  Your assertion, which you conveniently snipped, was that the RATE of temperature rise was not unprecedented.  That the Earth has been much warmer, the CO2 concentration has been much higher, is not disputed.  But it didn't happen while homo sapiens existed.  We, and our current economy and culture are adapted to the climate as it has been in last hundred thousand years.  We and other species could no doubt adapt to the much warmer climate of the Carboniferous era - but not in a few hundred years.

> But in this case we don't need to look for "super complex factors".  We know exactly how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and we know exactly how it traps heat.

 

And yet we don't know why during the Ordovician period 450 million years ago there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, about 4400 ppm verses 380 today, but the world was in a severe ice age, much colder than the more recent ice ages we are more familiar with.
 

> The only uncertainties are in the positive feedback factors, like water vapor, snow cover,

Don't misunderstand me, I'm perfectly willing to concede that human activity has had a effect on global climate and will have a even bigger effect in the future, but predicting exactly what things will be like in the future or explaining why there were as they were in the past is not as simple as you seem to think. Cloud cover and snow cover determines how much energy is available to run the entire global climate machine, so uncertainties about them means uncertainties about everything.   

> methane production

And methane is 30 times as effective at producing a greenhouse effect as CO2 is.

 

 > The main factor for the temperature variations on the scale of millions of years is the change in solar intensity and the Earth's orbit.

Did that revelation come to you in a dream? You know why the Earth was super cold 450 million years ago and super hot 360 million years ago and everything in-between since?

No it came to me reading about the Milankovich cycles.

> Do you have any evidence that raising the temperature 4.5degK will not be disastrous for many millions of people?

No person who doesn't make his living feeding environmental panic says the global temperature is going to rise 4.5degK anytime soon,

It's the 95% upper confidence bound of the IPCC projection for 2100.  I don't know your conception of "soon", but I'll have living grandchildren then.  And again you spread the slur that climatologists are "making a living feeding panic".  All the climatologists that I know of had secure academic or government jobs before the AGW debate became politicized and the only monetary effect for them is that their government job may be cut if deniers get control.

but never mind, do you have any evidence that raising the temperature 4.5degK will not be beneficial for many millions of people? Do you have any evidence that the temperature things were at a century ago is the exact temperature things should stay at forever?
 

 >> It was not a coincidence that the megafauna of North America and South America and Australia that had existed for many millions of years disappeared almost immediately after humans visited those continents for the first time.  And today there are over 7 billion people on the Earth, never before have there been that many large animals of the same large species, nothing ever even came close. To keep that many animals alive radical things are going to be needed to be done, to also keep them happy even more radical things are going to be needed, like directly or indirectly diverting nearly 40% of the planet's photosynthetic output to human use. It would be astonishing if that sort of intervention did not cause global changes of some sort to the climate, but short of asking 5 or 6 billion people to kill themselves there is simply no alternative.

> Stupid hyperbole.  Nobody is asking anybody to kill themselves.

They'll never have the guts to come right out and say it, or perhaps they just don't have the brains to think things through, but In effect that is exactly precisely what those moral paragons called "environmentalists" are calling for! They say we should stop using fossil fuel, tear down hydroelectric dams,  and don't even think about using nuclear power;

Bullshit.  You're just making up straw man "environmentalist".  One of my close friends is president of the Sierra Club and he's *for* nuclear power.  And even those who are against it only hold that opinion because they think solar and wind can replace oil. NONE OF THEM think we can or should reduce overall energy consumption per captia.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:41 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

 

> We and other species could no doubt adapt to the much warmer climate of the Carboniferous era - but not in a few hundred years.

When things got super hot life adapted, and we're far more intelligent than anything that lived during the Carboniferous and the specialty of intelligence is being good at adapting quickly to changing environmental conditions.  

> > Did that revelation come to you in a dream? You know why the Earth was super cold 450 million years ago and super hot 360 million years ago and everything in-between since?

> No it came to me reading about the Milankovich cycles.

Please explain how ether the 21,000 or 26,000 or 41,000 year Milankovitch cycle can explain why the Earth was  colder than it's ever been 450 million years ago and hotter than any time in the last two billion years 360 million years ago.
 

>> No person who doesn't make his living feeding environmental panic says the global temperature is going to rise 4.5degK anytime soon,

> It's the 95% upper confidence bound of the IPCC projection for 2100. 

Bureaucratic agencies have a survival instinct, if people thought there was no need to be in a environmental panic there would be no reason for a agency like the IPCC to exist, and I don't give a damn if they're confident I only care if they're correct and predictions about what things will be like in 85 years almost never are. For heavens sake that's like demanding that the Wright Brothers find a solution to airport congestion; if in 85 years global warming turns out to be a real problem our toolkit for fixing things will be VASTLY larger and more powerful than it is now, and in the meantime there are plenty of more important problems that need fixing right now.

 

> Bullshit.  You're just making up straw man "environmentalist".  One of my close friends is president of the Sierra Club and he's *for* nuclear power. 

We've been down this road before.  I don't know who your mystery friend is but I do know that the Sierra Club official website says:

 
"The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy."

> And even those who are against it only hold that opinion because they think solar and wind can replace oil.

Then they are fools.

  John K Clark

[Alberto G. Corona]

The key point is not energy, but power. Political power.

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

--

Alberto.

[Alberto G. Corona]

There is hope anyway. For example slip the attention of the power hungry and their pawns, the obsessive people with other menaces. For example, the possible impact of an asteroid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aGMDMNeWh0

To divert world efforts to create a body of the UN to conjure that menace. That way the heads of state and the megaburocracies can meet, they can increase taxes, they can marry their sons among them, the mases will be indoctrinated and will be happy with the new fears watching the TV. scientifics that are deniers of the asteroid consensus would be harrassed by prominent figures of the mass media and everyone will be happy.

But I´m affraid that this would not work, unless the asteroid require harder sacrifices to the political elite, more than taxes. for example blood sacrifices. For example abortions in masse. That is the attractive of ecologism and global warming: The commitment to the cause produced by blood sacrifices and the consequent psychological slavement of women. Once you alienate women from their men, you have enslaved a country.

--

Alberto.

[zibble...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:02:23 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

> What evidence can you cite that in the past the Earth's temperature has risen more than 0.7degK in 40yrs?

 

Except for the Ordovician period 450 million years ago and a few very brief ice ages during the last few hundred thousand years the last billion years has always been warmer than now, occasionally MUCH warmer.  In the last billion years it has never been warmer than during the Carboniferous Era 360 million years ago, and I don't believe life has ever been quite that lush and plentiful again.

John - the eco-system in the Carboniferous Era  was whole levels less complex than now. We live in the period of most complexity. If you actually visited the Carboniferous what would strike (just before the other thing behind you ate you) the mot would be how little diversity there was. There were no flowers, ferns  carpeted a lot of the planet. No bees. much less in the sky.

And animals were much more simple, and they were all cold blooded. Don't get me wrong, they had a great life. They loved eating each-other. ,

Not that it isn't an interesting theory though. You're sort of lining up epochs like the Carnivorous, surveying their responses to steamy hot period.. Finding they wee making hy bby. So then what we is use the market reactions of the pre-amphibian meg tongues, and the humungus mcfungi crocahungergonnaeatas,....they definitely kept coming back to the steamy stinky outdoor bathing lidos and it was blasted hot there

Yes. I'm on board. We use that as proxy for the situation now. John, johnny boy, gosh I do fancy you roitten

[zibble...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 12, 2014 6:20:05 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:41 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

 

> We and other species could no doubt adapt to the much warmer climate of the Carboniferous era - but not in a few hundred years.

When things got super hot life adapted, and we're far more intelligent than anything that lived during the Carboniferous and the specialty of intelligence is being good at adapting quickly to changing environmental conditions.

> > Did that revelation come to you in a dream? You know why the Earth was super cold 450 million years ago and super hot 360 million years ago and everything in-between since?

> No it came to me reading about the Milankovich cycles.

Please explain how ether the 21,000 or 26,000 or 41,000 year Milankovitch cycle can explain why the Earth was  colder than it's ever been 450 million years ago and hotter than any time in the last two billion years 360 million years ago.

you asked this in previous climate row thread months back. I actually answered at the time and it was a pretty answer I answered all your questions I saw in that post.

Do you know what you did? you totally ignored me for the rest of the climate row. And you carried on asking the same questions..

Si come on! You aren't interested in answers to any of your questions..

And nor should you be.. You love this sort of john against the world thing, Climate is the mother of all john against the world You lurve climate

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, <zibble...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Please explain how ether the 21,000 or 26,000 or 41,000 year Milankovitch cycle can explain why the Earth was  colder than it's ever been 450 million years ago and hotter than any time in the last two billion years 360 million years ago.

> you asked this in previous climate row thread months back. I actually answered at the time and it was a pretty answer

Your answer would have been even prettier if it actually existed. I just did a search on that old thread and neither you nor anybody else explained how the 21,000 or 26,000 or 41,000 year Milankovitch cycle made the Earth colder than it's ever been 450 million years ago and made the Earth hotter than any time in the last two billion years 360 million years ago.

  John K Clark

 

[spudb...@aol.com]

what of snowball earth, where phyto plankton chilled the earth over, entirely? This was at least 600 million years ago, make the epoch of the reptiles, and later, dinosaurs, 300-400 million years in the future of snowball earth. Freaky, that.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: real A.I.

[LizR]

The point is that none of these previous events involved such rapid change as we're seeing now, but even if they did, so what? We know what's going on, it isn't hard to monitor. We've known how the greenhouse effect works for more than 2 centuries, we can measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we know it's gone up just over 40% since the industrial revolution, we have a reasonable model of the likely results - not perfect of course for such a complex system, but we're seeing the sorts of results that have been predicted. Ice melting over the arctic, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, more extreme weather and now a disruption to the jet stream. If this was, for example, the detection of a new astronomical object or fundamental particle there wouldn't be any question about whether it existed.

[Chris de Morsella]

---

From: Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: real A.I.

>>The key point is not energy, but power. Political power.

Precisely... for once you say something that actually makes some sense... though not in the way you intended it to. 

The key nexus of power is the power of the fossil lobby protecting the future evaluation of its fossil energy reserves -- and hence the current bottom line balance sheets of the global fossil energy giants. As long as the world remains fixed on the fossil carbon treadmill these huge fortunes will be protected and their power -- both economic and political -- preserved. This provides a powerful and clear motive to lie, distort, obfuscate, censure, oppose, and obstruct.

-Chris

[Chris de Morsella]

---

From: LizR <liz...@gmail.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: real A.I.

>>The point is that none of these previous events involved such rapid change as we're seeing now, but even if they did, so what? We know what's going on, it isn't hard to monitor. We've known how the greenhouse effect works for more than 2 centuries, we can measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we know it's gone up just over 40% since the industrial revolution, we have a reasonable model of the likely results - not perfect of course for such a complex system, but we're seeing the sorts of results that have been predicted. Ice melting over the arctic, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, more extreme weather and now a disruption to the jet stream. If this was, for example, the detection of a new astronomical object or fundamental particle there wouldn't be any question about whether it existed.

This is what happens when trillions of dollars of "wealth" are pegged to the future value of the fossil carbon deposits, it creates a massive incentive to obstruct science and policy and to continue on with a business as usual approach. If the world seriously began transitioning away from the burning of fossil carbon in order to produce mechanical work -- extremely powerful mega fortunes with vested outsized influence over the political bodies and the courts (and every other facet of society as well) -- would see the future evaluations of their vast carbon reserve holdings evaporate. These future evaluations are counted as significant current assets on balance sheets.

I suspect many global multinational energy corporations would go belly up if the current market evaluation of their future carbon reserve evaluations collapsed.

-Chris

[Chris de Morsella]

Alberto... you sound like someone who is convinced that the black helicopters are coming for you. Since you seem to thrive on paranoia and fear, let me give you some more fodder to fuel the mental fires of the paranoia squirming around inside your mind.

Here is another scary fear your godless UN elites can enslave the masses with.

Gamma-Ray Burst Caused Mass Extinction?

				Gamma-Ray Burst Caused Mass Extinction? A stream of gamma rays aimed at Earth may have caused a mass die-off 440 million years ago, according to a new paper that says a similar celestial catastrophe could...
				View on news.nationalgeograph...	Preview by Yahoo

 

---

From: Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: real A.I.

[meekerdb]

Exactly so. But if the new astronomical object were an asteriod that was predicted to hit
the Earth in 20yrs and preventing this would require some effort and expense on the part
of the rich and comfortable there would be deniers pointing out that many objects have
struck the Earth in the past and life survived and besides it will probably just strike
the ocean and nobody but environmental elitists care about the ocean and it's really just
a hoax by astronomers to make them rich and we all know that those orbital mechanics
programs can be tweaked to give any answer you want and besides the asteroid may contain
precious metals we can mine and if it hit the middle east wouldn't we all be better off
anyway and let's just wait because we're sure to invent some magic bullet to solve this
problem in the next 19yrs.

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

There are many kind of dumb people, but there are one kind of the dumbest ones, for which the  Western Wold  produce a massive surplus nowadays: the ones that think that, because they are born and they are so pretty and so nice and so intelligent, and because they are iphones, plasma TVs and documentaries about the universe, there would be no more dictatorships, no more deaths, no more hunger, no more turmoil in his country never forever again.

[Alberto G. Corona]

they are -> they have

--

Alberto.

[LizR]

True. That is simultaneously amusing and terrifying.

 

[LizR]

On 13 December 2014 at 10:24, Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are many kind of dumb people, but there are one kind of the dumbest ones, for which the  Western Wold  produce a massive surplus nowadays: the ones that think that, because they are born and they are so pretty and so nice and so intelligent, and because they are iphones, plasma TVs and documentaries about the universe, there would be no more dictatorships, no more deaths, no more hunger, no more turmoil in his country never forever again.

The Romans called it "bread and circuses" I believe. Plus ca change. 

[LizR]

Has anyone noticed that it is almost exactly one galactic year since the Permian-Triassic extinction? (96% of marine and 70% of land life died - the only extinction event known to have wiped out insect species, apparently). So we're back in the same part of the galaxy as we were when it happened....last time....!

Of course the galaxy is a dynamic thing and "the same part" loosely defined at best, but ... something else to worry about?

:-)

[Alberto G. Corona]

The permo-triassic extinction was caused by vulcanism (a superplume) in Siberia. That is the most accepted hypothesis.

[meekerdb]

On 12/12/2014 12:02 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

Alberto... you sound like someone who is convinced that the black helicopters are coming for you. Since you seem to thrive on paranoia and fear, let me give you some more fodder to fuel the mental fires of the paranoia squirming around inside your mind.

Here is another scary fear your godless UN elites can enslave the masses with.

Gamma-Ray Burst Caused Mass Extinction?

				Gamma-Ray Burst Caused Mass Extinction? A stream of gamma rays aimed at Earth may have caused a mass die-off 440 million years ago, according to a new paper that says a similar celestial catastrophe could...
				View on news.nationalgeograph...	Preview by Yahoo

 

Mass extinction...Alberto would be all for that.  He'd just be against doing anything to stop it.  Anybody who'd propose that is a pinko atheist commy set on world domination.

Brent

[zibble...@gmail.com]

I had a different nick I should think. I was off the meds, went all 80's retro. I think I was Robert Palmer or one of the models

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATvu5f9vE