Bruno:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
Ronald
On May 13, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks Russell, I will take a look. At first sight he makes the same
error with numbers that
read Aixiv.org:0905.0624v1 (quant-ph) and see if you agree with it
Ronald
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
Stathis,
I agree halfway with you and expected something (maybe more).
Do you mean the others are zombies? not ME (you, etc. 1st pers).
I take it one step further, the fun (I agree) includes a satisfaction that
here is a bunch of really smart guys and I can tell them something in their
profession
Hi Stephen,
On 13 May 2009, at 22:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I see the goal that you have, as best I can understand your
writtings and discussions. I salute your valiant efforts. The ideas
that I have expressed so far, such as those in this exchange, are
merely the
The following link shows convincingly that what one gains by accepting
MWI is far greater than what one loses (an answer to the born
probabilities)
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/if-many-worlds.html
The only law in all of quantum mechanics that is non-linear,
non-unitary,
Ronald,
On 14 May 2009, at 13:19, Ronald (ronaldheld) wrote:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
UDA *is* the detailed explanation of that physics statement. So it
would be simpler if you could tell me at which step you have a problem
of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ronald,
On 14 May 2009, at 13:19, Ronald (ronaldheld) wrote:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
UDA *is* the detailed explanation of that physics statement. So it
would be simpler if you could tell me at which step
Hi,
When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many
places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the
starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched
as if the mathematics is defining what there is, rather than a mere
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many
places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the
starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched
as if the mathematics is defining what there is,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 05:30:57PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thanks Russell, I will take a look. At first sight he makes the same
error with numbers that Wolfram makes with cellular automata.
I think this sums up my feeling too. Although, I'm not sure we're
talking about the same
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many
places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the
starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched
as if the mathematics is
2009/5/15 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Stathis,
I agree halfway with you and expected something (maybe more).
Do you mean the others are zombies? not ME (you, etc. 1st pers).
I don't think others are zombies, but it is interesting nevertheless
to consider the possibility.
I take it one
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Colin Hales
c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
My ability to mentally manipulate mathematics therefore makes me a
powerful lord of reality and puts me in a position of great authority and
clarity.
Aren't people who are good at math already pretty much in
Hi Bruno, I meant to reply to this earlier:
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Consciousness is information?
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:45:13 +0200
On 30 Apr 2009, at 18:29, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Apr 2009, at 23:30, Jesse Mazer
On May 14, 4:45 pm, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
At the same time position 1 completely fails to explain an
observer of the kind able to do 1a.
I would say that position 2 fails to explain the observer too, you
have to actually explain the observer to claim that a position
On May 14, 9:47 pm, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
On May 14, 4:45 pm, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
At the same time position 1 completely fails to explain an
observer of the kind able to do 1a.
I would say that position 2 fails to explain the observer too, you
have to
16 matches
Mail list logo
