tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post8407998843735935461..comments2024-11-12T03:17:51.948-05:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: Are Uncomputable Entities Useless for Science?Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-6037721082022508172015-06-29T01:51:48.786-04:002015-06-29T01:51:48.786-04:00pengobatan kutil kelamin
obat eksim
obat kanker pa...<a href="https://www.academia.edu/9733501/Obat_kutil_kelamin_resep_dokter" rel="nofollow">pengobatan kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12539815/Obat_Penyakit_Eksim_Di_Kelamin" rel="nofollow">obat eksim</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12289394/obat_herbal_untuk_kanker_payudara_kanker_serviks_kutil_kelamin_ambeien_gonore_sipilis_miom_dll" rel="nofollow">obat kanker payudara yang alami dan manjur</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12098042/cara_menghilangkan_kutil_pada_kemaluan_secara_alami" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12097986/CARA_MENGOBATI_KUTIL_KELAMIN_INTERNAL" rel="nofollow">merontokkan kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12097977/cara_menghilangkan_kutil_pada_kemaluan_pria" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin sampai tuntas</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12092549/obat_kutil_kelamin_di_apotik_daftar_obat_apotek_obat_kutil_kelamin_pada_wanita_obat_kutil_kelamin_tradisional_obat_kutil_kelamin_wanita_obat_kutil_kelamin_pria" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin di jakarta</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11978994/obat_herbal_buat_kanker_payudara_obat_kanker_payudara_alami_obat_kanker_payudara_yang_ampuh" rel="nofollow">obat kanker payudara di jakarta</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11978980/obat_kanker_payudara" rel="nofollow">obat kanker payudara di jogja</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11978949/obat_kanker_serviks" rel="nofollow">obat kanker serviks stadium 3</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11967468/obat_herbal_untuk_kutil_di_kemaluan" rel="nofollow">Tips mengobati kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11967408/obat_untuk_menghilangkan_kutil_secara_alami_obat_alami_untuk_menyembuhkan_kutil_kelamin" rel="nofollow">ramuan alami untuk kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11967219/cara_mengobati_kutil_di_kemaluan" rel="nofollow">cara merontokkan kutil di kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11805210/obat_kutil_di_kemaluan_yang_alami" rel="nofollow">dulunya kencing nanah sekarang ada kutilnya</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11776555/cara_mengobati_kutil_kelamin_secara_tradisional" rel="nofollow">obat kutil</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11624832/OBAT_UNTUK_PENYAKIT_KUTIL_DI_LIPATAN_PAHA" rel="nofollow">obat kutil apotik</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11384329/OBAT_HERBAL_UNTUK_PENYAKIT_KELAMIN" rel="nofollow">OBAT HERBAL KUTIL DI KEMALUAN ATAU JENGGER AYAM</a><br />obat kutil kelamin yang alamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021938162867605234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-64389542759339157672014-03-06T15:00:32.308-05:002014-03-06T15:00:32.308-05:00Robert Crease is the Director of the Philosophy De...Robert Crease is the Director of the Philosophy Department at Stony Brook University and writes about the history of science. For the necessary background history read his book, “A Brief Guide to The Great Equations” (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Guide-Great-Equations/dp/1845292812). Then read these three informative articles on the Dirac Equation (Dirac is hardly mentioned in “Equations” interestingly enough, since he should play a role even more prominent than Einstein):<br />a) http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf<br />b) http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf<br />c) http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/HotsonIE86.pdf<br /><br />Here’s a brief summary of what you’ll find. Heisenberg conceived of his matrix mechanics at roughly the same time that Schrodinger conceived of his wave equation. The two approaches to quantum theory were demonstrated to be mathematically equivalent but all of the scientists preferred Schrodinger’s equation because it was much easier to deal with and they were already familiar with continuous functions. Heisenberg hated this and reacted like a little, immature child, calling Schrodinger’s equation “intellectual trash.”<br /><br />When Dirac developed a relativistic formulation of Schrodinger’s wave equation he discovered that it had four roots, two positive and two negative. Rather than accept the negative solutions, the science community, led by Heisenberg since his matrix mechanics didn’t have these roots, entered some bizarre conspiracy and went to extraordinary lengths of irrationality to get rid of them. The Dirac equation naturally demonstrates that the vacuum is a plenum of negative energy, the “negative energy sea.” Essentially, this sea and our positive energy world are produced by nothing but electrons and waves since positrons are nothing but out of phase electrons; positrons and electrons continuously oscillate back and forth from the electron state to the positron state. Heisenberg couldn’t stand the idea of this negative energy sea so he just got rid of it and replaced the negative solutions to Dirac’s equation with “creator” and “annihilator” operators which completely violate conservation. He then suggested that they didn’t “really” violate conservation because they were only “virtual” in that their existence was restricted to the time frame described by his Uncertainty Principle. <br /><br />The whole entire modern day Standard Model of particle physics, to say nothing of Big Bang theory, Inflation, etc., is based on this garbage and, to use the words of a mathematician I know, may not be entirely wrong but have some serious foundational issues! Read the book and the papers, I think you’ll be glad you did. It’s a beautiful case study with regards to the absurdity of human nature and the veracity of your mathematical model of mind. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-13388606827232290772014-03-05T15:49:16.794-05:002014-03-05T15:49:16.794-05:00Michelangelo was a member of the Illuminati; his a...Michelangelo was a member of the Illuminati; his artworks, but especially his “Creation of Adam,” makes this readily apparent to anyone who also happens to be a member of the Illuminati. “Creation of Adam” has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the Biblical story, rather, it’s esoteric wisdom leading to Gnosis hidden in plain view. Adam represents “Everyman (woman)” who has “fallen” into the world of duality – broken symmetry – but Adam, the ideal, also exists in the Garden of Eden, representative of a super-symmetric state of bliss which transcends duality; a place where everything equals everything – event symmetry! When man (woman) falls into conventional existence, an existence characterized by broken symmetry, they have within a super-symmetric seed, the enlightened point of origin. The journey to enlightenment is a function mapping the broken symmetry to super-symmetry; practically speaking, fallen man (woman) has the seed of super-symmetry in their prostate (Skene’s) gland and when they follow the esoteric instruction said super-symmetric seed undergoes a transformation, the lead becomes gold, and ends up dwelling in the pineal gland. The fallen man (woman), who dwells in Hell or Samsara, is allowed through the gate and enters Heaven or Nirvana. Of course both exist concurrently right here in our familiar reality, only one’s perceptive awareness has changed. In his “Creation of Adam,” Michelangelo places “God,” represented by a common metaphor for wisdom at the time, an elderly, bearded man, inside the human brain approximately where the pineal gland would be; many art critics and historians call this the “Uterine Brain” and erroneously interpret it to mean that Michelangelo was suggesting “God” controls humankind. This is what Euler’s famous formula represents, the transformation from broken symmetry to super-symmetry!<br /><br />When Michelangelo painted “The Last Judgment” in the Sistine Chapel, many of the bishops and cardinals were offended at all of the nudity; one cardinal even suggested to the Pope that it was better suited to a bathhouse. The Pope sent a letter via courier to Michelangelo telling him to “make it right.” Michelangelo sent a letter back to the Pope telling the Pope, “make nature right and art will soon follow.” Michelangelo’s point was that the problem wasn’t with the art, rather, it was with nature – the bishops and cardinals. The bishops and cardinals weren’t illuminated; they were still dwelling in the state of broken symmetry. If they were illuminated they would feel no need to hide nature’s beauty behind a cloak of deceit. Apparently the Pope at the time was also a member of the Illuminati because “The Last Judgment” remained as Michelangelo painted it until after Michelangelo died and even then there were some mysterious and rather humorous difficulties experienced during its defacement.<br /><br />I was studying Linear Algebra and everything was going quite well until I came to:<br /><br />“Consider the set, L(V,V), of all transformations from V into V, then L is closed, associative, and bilinear with respect to transformation product or successive transformations . . . but it’s not commutative.”<br /><br />I was like, “Screech, back up, commutativity is implicit in associativity AND bilinearity.” The author of the textbook was kind enough to present a counter-example showing why L is not commutative. He used an element from the standard basis of Euclidean two space with a reflection across the y-axis and a counter-clockwise rotation through 90 degrees as transformations; I used the same set-up and added a reflection across the origin to demonstrate counter-examples for both associativity and bilinearity. It was a trivial demonstration. Why do these damn bishops and cardinals feel it’s necessary to hide nature’s beauty behind a cloak of deceit? I’ve been contrary my whole life so it’s certainly something I’m pondering!<br />PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-64053940765807411732014-03-05T15:47:23.064-05:002014-03-05T15:47:23.064-05:00I was looking for your infinite-order probability ...I was looking for your infinite-order probability post and found the post about Zarathustra and his saving box which led me here. This is a bit out of my league currently, but what if certain computables depend on certain uncomputables? I've got Euler's famous formula in mind right now but I'm thinking of convergent series in general. Would convergent series exist without divergent series? Have you ever thought of Euler's equation as a simple example of Supersymmetry? It kind of makes me think of Phil Gibbs' attempt to generate supersymmetry, what he calls event symmetry, using an infinite-order quantization. An infinite-order quantization is like an infinite-order probability which has been shown to converge . . . <br /><br />But I don't like the Born-Pauli interpretation of Schrodinger's function. Dirac's relativistic formulation disclosed the whole world, the negative energy sea, and scientists buried it underneath a bunch of bullshit: why? To save a bullshit paradigm? Because Heisenberg was a little bitch? The Standard Model is built on "virtual" bosons, I mean WTF? I could understand it if there was no other alternative but Dirac provides a beautiful alternative. Science, as it stands today, is a bunch of garbage! The Nobel prize is a big, fat, ugly joke . . . and it's not even funny!<br /><br />So, today, knowing what you know, do you consider the conversation you had with 4 year-old Zarathustra empirical evidence for re-incarnation and the accessibility of omniscience?PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-85858822173398060662008-10-29T22:50:00.000-04:002008-10-29T22:50:00.000-04:00Abram, yes you seem to be right, my argument also ...Abram, yes you seem to be right, my argument also seems to show that for the purposes of science (defined in terms of finite datasets and finite linguistic utterances) we don't need TM's but only FSM's.<BR/><BR/>This of course doesn't bother me at all.<BR/><BR/>Note that I am not saying that uncomputable entities or TM's don't "exist" in any deep philosophical sense. I'm just saying that, from the point of view of science, they might as well not exist. Science isn't necessarily everything....<BR/><BR/>You raise an interesting point which is that if all the agents in a community share the same internal uncomputable entity U ... and if they each <I>assume</I> that each other share it (without need for experimental evidence) ... then, they can coherently use this to explain scientific datasets.<BR/><BR/>This is consistent with what I showed above, so long as it means that the community considers U simpler than its linguistic explication.<BR/><BR/>I am reminded of how we each implicitly assume each other are <I>conscious</I>, without empirical evidence. <BR/><BR/>Yet, I am wary of the approach of taking this kind of shared, unsubstantiable intuition as a basis for scientific process....Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-89252258928263690942008-10-29T12:46:00.000-04:002008-10-29T12:46:00.000-04:00Ben,They would know it in the same way that we kno...Ben,<BR/><BR/>They would know it in the same way that we know that anyone has the ability to learn to count... the uncomputable stuffs would just be another mechanism of the mind that everyone would be able to use.<BR/><BR/>The reason I assumed that this was what you meant was because you are talking about an agent communicating the idea of using U to compute something. So, I figured that U must be something that all the agents had access to.<BR/><BR/>I think I may have mentioned this before... but it seems like your arguments could be applied just as well to argue that Turing machines are unnecessary and all we need is finite-state machines. (Which is, of course, literally all we have.) If someone claimed to have found a pattern in nature that was generated by a Turing machine (let's call it a Turing object, T), then they would need to communicate the idea to others using a symbol, S_T, and a set of manipulation rules that define the "turing-ness" of T, R_T. The rules would of course need to be implementable on a finite-state machine. So, the agent would be unable to convince its peers, because R_T would be a working finite-state explanation, unless all of the agents happened to have some bias towards objects conveniently described with R_T, in which case they would subjectively like to think that T is really Turing-computed rather than finite-state-computed.<BR/><BR/>If the above argument doesn't sound analogous to your argument, then take the disanalogies to be places where I still don't understand your argument.abramdemskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505965907380398166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-7189113966378131922008-10-29T12:28:00.000-04:002008-10-29T12:28:00.000-04:00Abram: well, if every agent had the same oracle in...Abram: well, if every agent had the same oracle in their brains, how could they know this? If they need to verify this thru linguistic communication, then you run up against the issues I mentioned in my post. But on the other hand, if they know this via some non-linguistic, non-finite-data-driven, intuitive voodoo method, then, yeah, you've got a loophole, as you mentioned...Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-18205657410742184202008-10-29T12:22:00.000-04:002008-10-29T12:22:00.000-04:00Ben,OK, that makes perfect sense. For some reason ...Ben,<BR/><BR/>OK, that makes perfect sense. For some reason I thought you were *assuming* that every agent had the same uncomputable oracle U.abramdemskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505965907380398166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-64282559292320127672008-10-29T10:22:00.000-04:002008-10-29T10:22:00.000-04:00Abram ...There is only a finite number of possible...Abram ...<BR/><BR/>There is only a finite number of possible rules for mapping L-expression-sets of size less than N into L-expression-sets of size less than N.<BR/><BR/>So, whatever voodoo happens involving U, in the context of mapping L-expression-sets of size less than N into other ones, it must be equivalent to some subset of this rule-set. There must be some finite set of rules that does *exactly* what U does, within the specified size constraint.<BR/><BR/>Remember, there are no infinities involved here. <BR/><BR/>Whatever the halting oracle does **within the specified finite domain** could be emulated by some set of rules.<BR/><BR/>I could prove this to you in any specific case. Given a halting oracle U, you could make a finite table of its answer to all questions that can be posed within the finite domain. Then, there is some minimal Turing program that will give the same answers as the oracle to all those questions.<BR/><BR/>The question is whether you want to consider this corresponding set of rules (the Turing program) as being simpler than U or not (e.g. simpler than the oracle or not). If you want to consider the oracle as being simpler than the corresponding set of rules, then that's your right. The problem is that the oracle cannot be communicated ... but you're right that if *everyone in the community had the same halting oracle in their brain*, then they could do science in an uncomputable way, if they agree to measure simplicity relative to their brains rather than relative to their (discrete, finite language).<BR/><BR/>But, then they are not using the communication prior. Then they are using a prior that is, effectively, something like "complexity relative to the common brain structure of the members of the community."<BR/><BR/>This is interesting, but it's more like "shared intuition" than like what we think of as science. Because the common means of making judgments is not something that the community of agents is able to explicitly articulate in language.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure when I will find time to write that argument up in a fully mathematical way, which might be what it takes to get it across to you, I dunno?Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-854076039670002142008-10-28T23:45:00.000-04:002008-10-28T23:45:00.000-04:00Ben,I am having trouble "seeing" the argument.It s...Ben,<BR/><BR/>I am having trouble "seeing" the argument.<BR/><BR/>It seems to slip by the idea that if a mind contained uncomputable entities, actual information could be obtained by them.<BR/><BR/>So, for example, if all the agents in the scientific community were born with halting oracles, some descriptions of sensory data could be somewhat shorter by invoking the halting oracle. (Other descriptions would be longer as a result, but if the world generally had halting oracles in it, then the sensory-data would probably be more easily described using the halting oracle.)<BR/><BR/>The specific point at which the argument seems to trip for me is at the "If we say no... if we say yes..." point. You talk about replacing U with R_U, the set of rules associated with using S_U. It seems to me that U could not be replaced so easily, since those manipulation rules would not give all the answers a halting oracle could give. Furthermore, it seems to me that the rules for using S_U would include actual references to U, like "close your eyes and meditate and the answer will come to you". So I don't even see how it would make sense to replace U with R_U.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could clarify?abramdemskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505965907380398166noreply@blogger.com