studiot

You are the one claiming that there has to be an algorithm. The american mathematician, Jordan Ellenberg has a really good chapter on this subject in one of his books concerning exactly this controversy, which rages at the beginning of the 20th century, mostly in europe, but particularly in Russia. The names Markov and Nekrasov being particularly prominent, one for showing this not to be true the other offering a famous but false proof. Other involved were Poincare and Bachelier and in France Ross, Pearson and Lord Kelvin in the UK And Einstein got a Nobel for it in Germany.

Please note I have not claimed this (though I can't speak for others), I have simply claimed that this difference is important but has not received the attention it needs.

~So the bodies, call them A and B, are 'at rest', yet they feel the influence of gravity. Since you can't turn gravity on and off, there must be something holding them in place. So at time t = 0 that something is removed and the force of gravity begins to pull them together. Both Newton't 3rd Law (N3) and Newton's Law of gravitation say that the force of B upon A is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the foce of A upon B. Neweton's 2nd Law (N2) says that this force is proportional to the product of the mass and the acceleration of that mass. (F = ma) So to maintain the equality the smaller mass will have a larger acceleration. How are we doing so far ?

Last time we had a concerted spam attack I lost a length important post in the middle of a whole bunch of spam. So THANK YOU to the mods for managing to clear the spam out without loosing my post this time.

Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis ? You do not have a theory. Please use the correct terminology. By the way you are just plain wrong about the sandcastle, as modern Catastrophe Theory shows. You just have to do it right with the sandball. I agree. So why aren't you doing this ? It is my opinion (a different term again) that in this thread insufficient attention is being paid to the difference between Intelligence. Consciousness. Self Awareness. In particular I hold that Intelligence is not necessary for the other two. In fact I see a way that 'self determination' can be built into an artificial construct. I know knowthing about american car tyres, what do you know about uk tyres? As regards models and their use. I am very confused here. You appear to have indicated both that you can and cannot use models. Please clarify this. I have already agree that the only perfect model is the thing being modelled itself. But this does not imply that an imperfect model cannot yiedl useful information. For instance both the model and the thing itself must of necessity follow the same laws of physics. You cannot validly introduce principles and observations that violate these. In summary it is good to see you starting to discuss the comments of others. It would be nice to see you discussing the fundamental ones I have made, instead of ignoring them.

Thank you for replying. It is good that you told us you are 11th grade. We don't have 11th grade in the UK so I looked up the syllabus. ~Are you just starting or just finishing 11th grade ? This is important because the 11th grade syllabus contains what you need to properly ananlyse yourthought experiment viz Newton's Laws of Motion and the Laws of Kinematics. I don't think frames are introduced at this stage. So it is important to set the response a A question about your thought experiment for you. You have not stated a most important starting condition about the masses. Are they at rest, and if so what holds them there ? Why do they accelerate towards each other ?

This is the first glimmer of proper discussion I have discerned in this thread and addresses a very interesting point. We can even fruitfully introduce models into this dicussion. I don't think so. Normally the transition from one state to another would involve a process. But states are only defined for a defined object or system. Processes can involve objects or phenomena beyond the system. I can't see the standard thermodynamic definition of a thermodynamic state being of much use as a model for the state of consciousness. The state of equilibrium offers far more promise. That is because the specific state of dynamic equilibrium offers a model for the fact that consciousness has some similar characteristics. In particular both dynamic equilibrium and consciousness depends upon external variables as well as system variables and also the interplay between them. So if you wish to call consciousness a state, your state model must include both these internal and those external parameters.

Windows has its own backup system these days but if you want sa free alternative This is the best backup software https://www.intowindows.com/how-to-use-redo-backup-and-recovery/

Whatever you are distinguishing it is important to realsie that whatever you observe will depend upon the frame of reference you are working in. Acceleration and velocity are frame dependent, even in Galilean relativity. I'm also not sure what an 11th grader would know about this, Jeff is clearly assuming the greater mass is fixed in space or a one body analysis.

The only clean air zone in Somerset is in Bath and that is too new for any figures. But here is a similar question about busgates. On point about all the'nice little earners' is that the legislation that permits an authority to levy charges or fines limits what can be done with the money collected. In many cases it goes straight to (disappears in )the national treasury.

Very good question +1 I put this up for proper discussion and am pleasurably suprised by the result.

OK I was going to comment that if you want the equivalent single body problem you need to use what is called the reduced mass., and the relative acceleration and velocity. I can supply the maths if anybody wants this.

Well I had a useful sleep and in doing so came up with this thought about artificial consciousness. A person (Bob) has an accident and looses a leg. After hospital treatment for the trauma the doctors provide a replacement. No one say expects this to be a good as the original, though we are getting better and some replacement parts are actually better (What's that runner's name ?) We say Bob has an artificial leg. Wind on a few years and Bob has trouble with his heart. The doctors provide him with an artificial valve. In order to do this they render him unconscious, stop his heart, replace the valve and then restart his heart. After this they bring him back to consciousness. So as with the leg and the valve why do you not think this new consciousness is not artifical ?

Good morning, Jeff and welcome. What you are describing in dynamics is known as the two body problem. This will describe whether the bodies will actuall collide or do a dance around each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem Note that the thre body problem has not been solved analytically.

🙂 Congratulations you dodged the question yet again. Goodnight All.

I did not mention the word model or ask you to build one, and I certainly have not accused you of not reading the thread. As you say a model is never an exact replica of the real thing in all respects so what is the point of introducing them (models) ? Post reported.

I agree that ULEZ is controversial and raises hackles on both sides of the argument. So first tell me During Covid, which you obviously survived, did you follow the recommended guidelines and wash you hands many more times than usual ? If so Why ? As regards clean air I remember commissioning a safety study for health and safety purposes on the M% motorway in rural Somerset. I forget the exact levels now, but the worrying fact there was that we found a black deposit on the top of the lower flanges of the many girder overbridges that we have. This black deposit contained sufficiently high levels of lead to reder it unsafe to handle. We eventually employed a new technique, pionered to clean similar deposits from the ceiling of road tunnels in New York.

Yes you have mentionted 'satellite navigation' several times now, though you have completely failed to mention what you mean by this. Please demonstrate how this relates to the topic in hand, which is the (im)possibility of artificial consciousness. Since intelligence is different from consciousness we should not be discussing that subject either, according to the rules and regulations of this forum.

My head hurts with all that thinking. I need a cool beer.

I see little point in going into the detailed history of structural engineering since you have avoided responding to my main point about the decline in engineering capability after the fall of Rome, the Church of St Sophia not withstanding. The Romans were not scientists, they were technologists/engineers par excellence. Nor was the decline confined to Europe, western or otherwise. The nomadic 'babarian' hordes conquered into China, Mongolia, India and Indochina. In the Americas, warring indegenous civilazations conquered each other and some destroyed themselves. I would say that prominent landmark technological developments were Fire, stone tools and weapons, bronze tools and weapons, ferrous tools and weapons, agriculture, electricity. Gunpowder doesn't even make the second grade. The besigers of Rochester Castle did not have gunpowder but managed to contrive an equally powerful, and a damn sight more reliable, alternative, also known to the Romans. That is the volatility and explosion potential of pig fat at very high temperatures.

Agreed. We have a real expert on this subject as a member. I will lask @swansont put you right on your grasp of Physics.

One issue that has not been raised about voting is how the 'winner' is decided. In some systems I could end up 'voting' for the candidate I wished to vote against. Life is never that simple.

+1

Good question. +1

I consider my case that technological advances stagnated on balance during the stated period. That is enough to demonstrate that the OP case for continued advancement disproven. The need for subsequent reinforcement (the famous X structure) in the centre of Wells Cathedral, The failure of the South Wall of St Peter's Church Bampton due to not appreciating roof loads. In fact if you look into the records of many churches, built in those times, you will find either an actual collapse or sufficient movement to have required strengthening. Sadly some have yet to learn these lessons to this day.