All Activity
This stream autoupdates
 Past hour

A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk
Jack Jectivus replied to Jack Jectivus's topic in General Philosophy
Just so I understand you correctly, you're saying that if the AI wants to guarantee its creation, and therefore promote optimization, it needs to ensure that those who decided not to assist with its construction are punished so that we, knowing that it would ensure that, construct it out of fear of that threat? 
Super condensate, strings (bosons) and loops (fermions)
joigus replied to Kuyukov Vitaly's topic in Speculations
Yes. I'm topological at heart. I'm totally enamoured of SU(2)*xSU(2) AshtekarPlebanski formulation of gravity with constraints. Gauge groups I tend to see as coverings of ST groups. Probably wrong as groups go deep. But you must simplify at some point. Totally concur with you that scalar field is something to be understood as the final touch after the rest of the variables have been understood. To me it's no coincidence that scalars seem to be key to both cosmology and mass spectrum. Easy to say, but... And probably not for me, but I want to have a first row seat when someone comes up with the answer. I'm not making much sense. It's too late here. 
Super condensate, strings (bosons) and loops (fermions)
Mordred replied to Kuyukov Vitaly's topic in Speculations
Well an obvious asymmetry is any treatment involving inner products as opposed to cross products. Differential geometry applies to any field treatment. Hence Kronecker delta and Levi Cevitta applications are essential along with the holomorphic (holonomy etc) connections. An obvious necessity in higher dimensional applications along with the limits of any applicable equation. (Highly common application phase polarities and other applicable wavefunction). This leads back to my first post on the observer orientation aspects. Which I need to clarify with the topology application as being defined as a fully coordinate independent treatment. (QFT for example has a coordinate dependence (strongly allied in the weak field appromation as per SR) though second order to QM first order treatments). Cross product fields require an velocity operator to comply to the right hand rule. Under group applications this is often the [math]\ mathbb{Z][/ math] this is also applicable to parity operators.  Yesterday

A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk
uncool replied to Jack Jectivus's topic in General Philosophy
Sorry if I'm insisting a bit much, but you have missed the point of updateless decision theory. If the AI doesn't plan to carry out its threat, then it fails as a threat. Have you read Yudkowsky's answer to Newcomb's paradox? Because your critique is a lot like the answer of "Why don't I plan to take one box, then change my mind and take both?" If you don't accept his argument there, then you are undermining one of the foundational assumptions behind the basilisk. Note: I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong to reject the argument; however, if you do so, it doesn't really make sense to talk about something that depends so heavily on that argument. 
A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk
Jack Jectivus replied to Jack Jectivus's topic in General Philosophy
The error in UDT is it is only the belief that the punishment will occur that promotes its creation, not the punishment eventually being carried out. In this case, the empty threat of a punishment is exactly as effective as actually administering that punishment, so a perfectly logical AI would determine that, since the threat of punishment has already been made to the people of the past, it need not waste energy actually carrying out said punishment. I appreciate you for engaging with me on what you disagree with. It helps me flesh out my ideas, or determine if I should scrap them. 
What are you listening to right now?
Curious layman replied to heathenwilliamduke's topic in The Lounge
Nearly fell over when I watched this. I'd like to see Ken Ham debate evolution with someone like this. Would be far more intresting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson 
Super condensate, strings (bosons) and loops (fermions)
joigus replied to Kuyukov Vitaly's topic in Speculations
I just thought symmetric contracted with antisymmetric gives naught. After you intervened, I thought "maybe it's something like doubleindex spinor gravity." But I think now it must go deeper. He's not very talkative. I'll wait and see. I still want to know if the theory is topological. Topological theories are kind of my obsession. I'm scavenging for information in field theories. 
A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk
uncool replied to Jack Jectivus's topic in General Philosophy
Not if committing to the punishment is how it acausally promotes its creation. Which is part of the point of "updateless decision theory". 
Super condensate, strings (bosons) and loops (fermions)
Mordred replied to Kuyukov Vitaly's topic in Speculations
Einstein summation has its topological applications. The summation specifically involves the covariant and contravarient terms of each group. The superscript is being the covariant terms. The subscript contravarient while a mixed group will have both. The full Kronecker delta is an Ideal example to study. Granted the Levi Cevita adds additional degrees of freedom. PS I tend to think more gauge group than topological, while Studiot for example thinks the latter. ( I haven't seen enough of your posts but I am thinking your more the latter as well) @the OP I have zero problems with applying Wilson loops to the SM model In an entirely. It is a viable alternative. So I support the OP on thus methodology though myself I am more up to date on canonical treatments as per GFT. Doesn't invalidate other treatments. I fully support you in showing the Langrangians as per observable vs propriogator action particularly in terms of show to apply the Ops model to the QED and QCD applications. (The Higgs can be addressed later ). 
Any volunteers for this analysis? "Step right up folks! Come into my new business (restaurant, offices, stores, markets, Disneyland, etc.) and enjoy AAR (accelerated air replacement). My competition has poor, weak A/C that just pushes the air with virus around for an hour before it finally slinks out the ceiling. That gives you plenty of time to get infected right thru your cloth mask. My business, however, has fresh air ALL THE TIME for you to enjoy! We have extra powerful fans to move the bad air out and good air in."


Very good point. How would you be able to tell? Something we should never lose sight of is the fact that it's perfectly possible to pose questions that don't make any sense. Some of these questions may be even hardwired in our brains for reasons rooted in survival, so that it's very difficult to shake them off. A kind of question that must have been very natural to ask in terms of the needs and concerns of our ancestors, but is no longer to be considered a proper question would be, e.g., What does the river want from me? It's very easy to understand why a fisherman was naturally driven to ask this kind of question. Questions don't have to make sense.

I've just seen one dP hanging there that you must clear out when dividing by dP. At, \[\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P}\right)_{T}=T\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial P}\right)_{T}+V\]

Thank you Prometheus: So with that iterative system we can, with a “probability of exactly 1, predict the outcome” of the next stage (to borrow from Ghideon’s phrasing), and yet there is a property of the structure that emerges from the repetitive process that could quite conceivably be "random" or impossible to predict. Is that fair to say? I’m not trying to drag you into anything. It’s just that, like iNow, I have a hell of a hard time reconciling “freedom” or “choice” with something determined.

A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk
Jack Jectivus replied to Jack Jectivus's topic in General Philosophy
My critique is more about the error in supposing that an AI would punish people for their actions when it's goal is optimization. It is true that it may acausally promote its own creation, but punishing people after it has already been built would be illogical, supposing that it's goal is optimization. My revision simply removes this unnecessary aspect from the thought experiment, so I suppose you could call it a simplification rather than a revision. 
A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk
uncool replied to Jack Jectivus's topic in General Philosophy
Not especially famous, no. It's a niche thought experiment from LessWrong. And your post takes it out of its specific context, namely, as a thought experiment about the effects of Eliezer Yudkowsky's "updateless decision theory" and "acausal trade". Note: I'm not saying that any of the above named things are correct or make sense, but your post ignores the foundation on which the thought experiment is based. 
Hi all. Perhaps someone knows which brand/model/year automobile is factory fitted with a stainless steel muffler ? Volvo? Mercedes ? Trying to locate from a wreckyard, a 6" round one, similar to

Yes and how many objects is 'objects' ? There must be more than one. But how many objects are there in a free body diagram ? Just one. Understanding this is the key to it all, as Ghideon so nicely told you three pages ago. and could you repair this English please / I do not understand the underlined bit. At the end I can see that it says that if A exerts a force on B then B exerts a force on A and I agree with that (as does everybody else).

I'm not sure, but I think he means the Earth is not an inertial system due to rotation > Coriolis and centrifugal fictitious forces? Is that what you mean, @Nedcim?

My book gave no such consideration in its explanation of Newton's third law: "If object A exerts a force on on object B, then object B exerts a oppositely directed force of equal magnitude on A." Furthermore, the book adds: "Newton's third law is about forces between objects. It says that such forces always oexample.Truairs that it is not possible for an object A to exert a force on object B without B exerting a force back on A." Again, there is no considerations on how the forces come to be only that they interact between objects. What's your explanation in those terms why the resultant normal forces from the book and table fail to be a Newton's third law pair? Equilibrium is dependent on the consequences of Newton's third law. Equilibrium requires an net external force and torque to to be zero. Explain how that is possible without the results from Newton's third law? I agree that the diagram is lacking but it's only used to highlight the unique case that is disregarded in most applications. The result of the forces is what matter for Newton's third law. The type of forces or how they come to be is not important. It's the same idea with motion. It's is of no consequence how motion came to be. What is important is how force changes that motion. It's not how I mean uniform, but how Newton formulated those laws under the assumption of uniform motion.

Thank you, Studiot. +1. This motivates me a lot to review my thermodynamics. I studied this ages ago, and it all has been ringing a bell while reading. The JT process was announced to us back then as something definitely important. Then I started studying statistical mechanics, which is great, because you get to see how it all works from the atoms to the thermodynamic variables, but you lose sight of many things because of the oversimplification.

Even with remarkably simple iterative systems like cellular automata rule 30 it is still unknown whether the central column is 'randomly' distributed  there is a prize for working out the value of the nth central column without having to run all n iterations  or prove that it is not possible.

Hi Ghideon: Is it possible for a system (or some "iterative run" of one) to be deterministic and yet computationally intractable?

Part 1 The analysis if the JouleThompson or JouleKelvin flow or throttling is interesting because it demonstrates so many points in a successful thermodynamic analysis. Appropriate system description Distinction from similar systems Identification of appropriate variables Correct application of states Distinction between the fundamental laws and the equations of state and their application JT flow is a continuous steady state process. The system is not isolated or necessarily closed, but may be treated as quasiclosed but suitable choice of variables. It cannot be considered as closed, for instance, if we consider a 'control volume' approach, common in flow processes, since one of our chosen variables (volume) varies. By contrast, the Joule effect is a one off or one shot expansion of an isolated system. So to start the analysis here is a diagram. 1 mass unit eg 1 mole of gas within the flow enters the left chamber between adiabatic walls and equilibrates to the V1, P1, T1 and E1. Since P1 > P2 the flow takes this 1 mole through the porous plug into the right hand chamber where it equilibrates to V2, P2, T2 and E2. The 'system' is just this 1 mole of gs, not the whole flow. The system thus passes from state1 to state 2. The First Law can thus be applied to the change. Since the process is adiabatic, q = 0 and the work done at each state is PV work. E2  E1 = P1V1  P2V2 since the system expands and does negative work. Rearranging gives E2 + P2V2 = E1 + P1V1 But E + PV = H or enthalpy. So the process is one of constant enthalpy or ΔH = 0. Note this is unlike ΔE which is not zero. Since ΔE is not zero, P1V1 is not equal to P2V2 More of this later. Since H is a state variable and ΔH = 0 [math]dH = 0 = {\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial T}}} \right)_P}dT + {\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_T}dP[/math] [math]{\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial T}}} \right)_P}dT =  {\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_T}dP[/math] [math]{\left( {\frac{{\partial T}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_H} =  \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial P}}} \right)}_T}}}{{{{\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial T}}} \right)}_P}}}[/math] Where [math]{\left( {\frac{{\partial T}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_H}[/math] is defined as the JouleThompson coefficient, μ, However we actually want our equation to contain measurable quantities to be useful so using [math]H = E + PV[/math] again [math]dH = PdV + VdP + dE[/math] [math]0 = TdS  PdV  dE[/math] add previous 2 equations [math]dH = Tds + VdP[/math] divide by dP at constant temperature [math]{\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_T} = T{\left( {\frac{{\partial S}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_T}dP + V[/math] But [math]{\left( {\frac{{\partial S}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_T} =  {\left( {\frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial T}}} \right)_P}[/math] so [math]V = T{\left( {\frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial T}}} \right)_P} + {\left( {\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_T}[/math] combining this with our fraction for μ we have [math]\mu = {\left( {\frac{{\partial T}}{{\partial P}}} \right)_H} = \frac{{T{{\left( {\frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial T}}} \right)}_P}  V}}{{{C_P}}}[/math] Which give a practical form with quantities that can be measured. [math]\Delta T = \frac{{T{{\left( {\frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial T}}} \right)}_P}  V}}{{{C_P}}}\Delta P[/math] Joule and Thompson found that the change in temperature is proportional to the change in pressure for a range of temperature restircted to the vicinity of T. The next stage is to introduce the second law and the connection between different equations of state and their meanings or implications. Edit I think I've ironed out all the latex now but please report errors to the author.