joigus

Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. It can't be photons. It can't be neutrinos either. It should be "cold."

I see your point, but I'm having difficulty understanding what side of a certain line your point is. That line being very clear in my mind, I do recognize that I'm having difficulty with your point. Will all due respect, I don't think it is. A straw man is putting words in your mouth that you haven't said, remind vaguely of what you've said, but are much easier to rebut than what you've actually said. Now, what you've said is, You seem to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that because there's no exchange of energy and momentum between the layers, or because energy/momentum don't play a role in the "upper layers", then the question of determination of actions is something beyond physics (chemistry --> biology). IOW, that physics (chemistry --> biology) has nothing to say about how the "upper layers" work from the smaller parts. What I said is that it's not just energy, momentum and the like the only quantities the determine the motion (I think this is in close correspondence to what you said, and thereby, as honest an answer to it as I can think.) In thermal systems, most of what the variables are doing is completely thermalized, hidden, smoothed out, it you will. In complex self-organizing (living) systems, it's quite different. It's even possible (actually quite plausible) that energy, momentum etc. + entropy (accounting for the lost information) do not suffice, and there be many more variables keeping track of the information. Actually, that's what I think is happening. There must be some other job that the remaining 1024-10 other variables are doing to organize the system. And that other job can be no other than physical (chemical --> biological.) The opposite would be what Daniel Dennett calls skyhooks, instead of cranes. I don't know if I'm being clear, although I must admit that I didn't pay the attention to some of your previous points that they deserved, I'll give you that. Your point of complaint is well taken, and I apologise. You sound to me so similar to a quasi-standard reductionist, determinist like myself (except for QM limitations) etc. that I'm confused. I'm not saying it's a moot point what you say; I'm saying that your point is so subtle to me that it escapes me so far. OK. I see how you thought that. I meant: Why would energy or momentum have to do with free will? Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't agree either. And I'm going over your argument, that I didn't completely understand. Here it is: This is a very interesting case that I think goes to illustrate how surprisingly different phenomena of emergence can be, so that to the non-reductionist mind (we all have one, mind you) they might look like almost magic. +1. In the case of the arch action, it's the last piece that does all the others do their job efficiently or not do it at all. Emergence it is, but not from out of the blue. It comes from the pieces, but in a devilishly complex and cooperative way. I said "magic" and, just to be clear, I do not think @Eise is talking about anything like. I do think that he's trying to draw a distinction I don't quite see. But I'll keep working on it. And as a last note for the time being, I never try to be told I'm right; I always try to be proved wrong. It's incredibly more constructive, and always a win-win situation. Yes, I'm still trying to figure this out. Not easy for me. So people act according to their wishes and belief. So then what? Do we stop studying DNA as a major determiner of some behaviours, which it surely is? Tobacco use has been shown to be correlated to Neanderthal genome. Do we deny it? See my point? Emergence is complicated: Neanderthals didn't smoke, of course. Consequences of causal connections may even shown up millennia afterwards they appeared. Every physical process implies an exchange of energy and momentum, and linear momentum, and other integrals of motion, like the Runge-Lenz vector. But overall they're just less than 10. Now, a real physical system has 1024+ determinations. Which combination of the 1024 determines that your sweetheart says "yes" to you when you ask her if she wants to marry you? I don't think it's energy or momentum, or any of the 3 components of the Runge-Lenz vector. It could be something like "every 1017 seconds all your atoms push in one direction (this is just a made-up example.) Energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc., just don't cut it.

I just hope I'm not totally un-right, right? You're a very good bad person. Or maybe a very bad good person. Which one would you rather be? I'll watch my step.

What's going on?

I understand soooo much better what you mean. I do have an answer for that, but I need more time. I want to apologise for the camel example, because it sounded facetious, although it was not. But I felt like I had to call you to task. This question matters to me because I think it's a much better stance to assume that something in the molecules is causing our behaviour (even if it's not coded in energy and momentum, why would it be?: if a system has 1024 determinations and my physics only give me less than 10) than just make big names like "will," "belief," etc. and go on to define people's ways taking that as a basis. The latter leaves you with nothing but the old system of punishment and guilt; the first allows you to conceive of better ways to improve the situation by understanding why some people behave badly. As I said before: early detection of pathological behaviours, monitoring, alleviation of a lot of suffering... But I need to think more about this.

I just forgot to type "almost." It's not my intention to take this discussion even farther off-topic than you already have. The OP was not about continuity almost everywhere anyway. If you don't speak English and are using google translator, it's OK. You just say so or ask for help. The OP has nothing to do with the measure of a set, but with the size of a quantity. You also mistype, right? For example, "terminoogy", "matematics", or my favourite: What are those? If you've got time, take a look at this word in the Oxford dictionary: "disingenuous." That's not even a sentence in English. Here's the proof (and mind you, the parser is only concerned with syntax, we could talk about meaning): No complete linkages found. ++++Time 0.05 seconds (30.83 total) Found 204 linkages (59 with no P.P. violations) at null count 4 Linkage 1, cost vector = (UNUSED=4 DIS=0 AND=2 LEN=43) +------- +------- +---------Wi--------+----------------TOo---------------+ | +-- | +----E---+---Os--+ +--I-+ | | | | | | | | LEFT-WALL presumably want.v something [that] [allow] [us] to make.v any -----------------------MVp-----------------------------+ ----Os-----------+ +---------Jp---- -------Ds--------+ | +-----Dmcn +-----A-----+ | +DD+ +---A | | | | | | physical.a experiment.n or have.v [a] consciousness.n by our 5 sense.n ----+ ----+ N---+ | organs.n +---------Wi--------+----------------TOo---------------+ | +----E---+---Os--+ +------------ | | | | | LEFT-WALL presumably want.v something [that] [allow] [us] to make.v any +---------Jp---- +-----------MVp----------+ +-----Dmcn --------If--------------------+------Os------+ | +DD+ +---A | | | | | | physical.a experiment.n or have.v [a] consciousness.n by our 5 sense.n ----+ ----+ N---+ | organs.n Constituent tree: (S (VP (ADVP presumably) want (NP something) that allow us (S (VP to (VP make (NP (NP any physical experiment) or have a (NP consciousness)) (PP by (NP (QP our 5) sense organs)))))))

You misunderstood me. I meant that the "argument", "this is not such and such, as I said earlier it's so and so" is not a serious argument and you can do much better than that. That's just gainsay followed by a re-definition or definition of a categorical qualification. Categorical limits always carry an arbitrariness with them. I was defining what I understand by reductionism. I have no idea how I could be wrong in what I understand by reductionism! What I understand by reductionism is, I surmise, what I understand by reductionism. Essentially, I said, there is causal connection between what atoms do and what macroscopic systems do. That's what I call "determine." The macroscopic patterns, on the contrary, do not determine (in that sense) what the atoms do. There is a directionality in what Steven Weinberg, e.g., in Dreams of a Final Theory, calls "arrows of implication." You denied the point. What am I supposed to do next? I simply pointed out that denying what something is following by the drawing of an arbitrary line, could be used to say that a camel is not a camel. Having said that, it's entirely possible that my argument is not an argument. All it would require for it not to be is to say: "It's not an argument," and then re-draw the line that defines what an argument is. It is entirely possible, I would say more than likely, that you teach me something I don't know. So yes, I want to learn the difference between causal relationships and emergence. All I'm asking is that, as soon as you have the time, give me something better than "no, that's not it, it's the other."

As everyone has explained it's not about photons interacting with each other. My way of wording it would be that it's about photons being affected by their common 'wave function.' The real problems with the MWI, I think, are the lack of falsifiability and a disastrous non-compliance with the principle of parsimony.

Now I understand what you mean with one of your "hodja." I thought you were talking about an invisible friend. "Continuous everywhere" is another expression intended to be intuitive rather than rigorous, but is more traditional. It's to do with measure (cardinality, number of things,) rather than size.

The only mathematical sense I can think of in which something being "almost infinite" (although that's not the proper way to say it) is asymptotics. This, in mathematics, is what most closely connects with what @studiot is saying: +1. Though you'd be well advised not to use the words "almost zero" or "almost infinite" in those cases. Take, for example, the number 10120 compared with 1. The wrong way to say it is "10120 is almost infinite." A better way to say it is, \[10^{120}+1\sim10^{120}\] Although the proper context is with functions. Example: \[f\left(x\right)\sim e^{x}\] \[g\left(x\right)\sim x\] Which means that f is ginormously bigger than g when x is big. The "almost" operator (\sim in LateX) defines an equivalence class (same limiting behaviour.) And you should never use it in combination with 0 or infinity. I hope that helps.

Fair enough. But let's analyse your argument by means of isomorphism. \[\varphi\left(\textrm{causal relationship}\right)=\textrm{camel}\] \[\varphi\left(\textrm{conceptual relationship}\right)=\textrm{horse}\] Now, this is what I see: And this is what you say: This is not a camel. As I said in my previous posting, it is a horse.

LOL. It's end of the week, @dimreepr. I'm beat. Forgive me. God speaks to me, but I'm never listening when he does.

Yanchilin, Yanshmilin. Haven't we been over this before? c2 or phi. You need more variables!!!

I'm not sure of anything. But the story of Joshua and the Canaanites is pretty unambiguous. You can spin it any way you want, but at the end of the day it's: God tells Joshua "I've promised Moses this land is yours, take it from the Canaanites. The Bible is clearly making things up about Jericho, which was destroyed by an earthquake about 1000 years before, but the story in Hazor seems to be pretty different, according to archaeologists: Internal rebellion. What seems to have happened is that grassroots people killed their own powerful brethren and made it look like a genocide of one people at the hands of another. In any case, the idea of extinguishing a rival culture was already being used. Even if it wasn't true! LOL

Well, in keeping with the topic too, the Bible is the fist book that defends genocide as a legit way of fostering your people's ambitions. So no, I'm no defender of Christianity. My opinion on the Bible, in case you want to know, is more or less abridged here: "Race" was a very important concept in the past. Egyptians depicted the Semites in no ambiguous terms in their papyri, with big noses and different clothes and hairstyles. In that sense I think I diverge (ever so slightly) from @iNow's picture only in the particular aspect that I think that the modern concept of it is an utilitarian re-definition (instead of a definition) for Europeans to keep making it rich to the expense of other peoples. But we could be discussing about this for ages. I think we basically agree.

If it's not too off-topic, I'd love to have a picture of the analogy. All analogies have limitations, but they're very useful tools.

Nothing is obvious in physics/cosmology. You don't come across as stupid at all. I think @Strange's answer just nailed what your confusion is about (+1.) I'll follow up if anything needs further clarification. Cheers!

I'm in a similar situation to @iNow: Very interested in this topic, I suspect enjoying the debate too, but in sorry need of more time to go over the main points.

OK, @Eise. You're pretty clever. I didn't want to do this, but you've forced me to. <BEGIN HUMOUR> Is there any way in which you can take it out of its generality so that it's right? Then you would be taking it at the point where I meant it to be. </END HUMOUR> You remind me of a friend philosopher (yes, I'm the type who enjoys the company of philosophers) who once told me: "What you're saying, taken to extremes, would imply that..." I retorted: "Then, please, don't take it to extremes, leave it where I put it." One of the rare occasions when I've been quick to answer to something.

Thank you. Well, I was just pointing out some mistyping. With a new theory, it's never just "a look." That's one problem. You must monitor the time you spend on ideas, own or from others. The premises alone tell me it's not gonna be worth my time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language) There may be newer/better more mandatory things. It's been a while for me. From Strange's reply I guess my answer is pretty outdated.

Google search: Did you mean: "V. Yanchi In" "quantum theory of gravity" No results containing all your search terms were found. Your search - "V. Yanchinin" "quantum theory of gravity" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.

Are you getting answer from your question or are you getting answers for your question? Also, I have a feeling this belongs in Speculations, as you seem to have come up with some answers for a question that doesn't make sense, as Mordred pointed out. It's also a feeling that your bottom question could go in the bottom topic.

You're welcome, Studiot. When it comes to free will I'd rather start with examples from biology, however simple. Whenever people propose a computer program as a model for thinking, I always miss the dynamical aspect: a program that's constantly being edited while it's being used. That's more like what I think is going on.