On 11/21/2014 10:39 PM, LizR wrote:
Is it possible to explain to a person of modest intelligence such as myself exacty how
you're violating the 2nd law?
(Otherwise I may feel compelled to quote Arthur Eddington...)
Loschmidt's idea was that an isolated column of gas in a gravitational field w
Is it possible to explain to a person of modest intelligence such as myself
exacty how you're violating the 2nd law?
(Otherwise I may feel compelled to quote Arthur Eddington...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe
> On 22 Nov 2014, at 4:59 am, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:06:47 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
I wonder if by now it's worth consideri
> On 17 Nov 2014, at 11:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 23:06, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
I wonder if by now it's worth considering in information-th
On 11/21/2014 2:44 PM, George wrote:
If one considers an exponential distribution such as
e^(-KE-PE)
where PE is a function of elevation
then at ground level one would have
e^(-KE)
and at a given elevation h
e^(-KE-PE) = e^(-PE)e^(-KE)
Renormalizing for the lower density the distribution at elev
If one considers an exponential distribution such as
e^(-KE-PE)
where PE is a function of elevation
then at ground level one would have
e^(-KE)
and at a given elevation h
e^(-KE-PE) = e^(-PE)e^(-KE)
Renormalizing for the lower density the distribution at elevation becomes
e^(-KE)
which is identic
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Mors
On 11/20/2014 9:07 PM, George wrote:
Brent you are right.
Maxwell distribution is not exponential with energy. For the purpose of comparing the
different distributions, I was attempting to give the same form to all distributions
Maxwell, Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein independently of the scalin
On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting spe
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:06:47 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal >
> wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> I wonder if by now it's worth considering in information-theoretic terms
> how the evolution of "academe" tends to resul
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> To get something real that you can actually see
>>
>
> > I am a platonist. If I see something, I very much doubt it is real ...
>
Then I don't know what the word "real" means.
>> You get all sorts of strange stuff with i, like i^2=i^6 =-1 and
>> i^4
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation is easily reversible (and it's
>> continuous and deterministic too), but with regard to the reversibility of
>> time that's a irrelevant fact because the SWE is a unobservable
>> abstraction.
>>
>
> > To be sure I was
You are right. My racewalking buddy and college classmate, a Doctor
Professor (retired) on the Yale Medical School faculty,
is engaged in Big Data regarding reading tissue data as to whether it is
carcinogenic. Right now that is entirely done by visual inspection of
doctors using their personal jud
On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:39:14 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
>> may be testable.
>>
>
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
>
> On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, > wrote:
>>
>> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.
>>>
>>
>>
On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
> may be testable.
>
> “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Direct
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 7:32:23 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
> may be testable.
>
>
>
> “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of
> Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different.
On 21 Nov 2014, at 00:57, George wrote:
Thanks Bruno, Liz and Richard for your responses.
The topic is extremely controversial…
OK.
It took me a few months of sleepless nights to come to term with
these ideas…. but let reason prevail. I am looking forward to an
open and rational discu
On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creat
On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:07, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The "mutiverse" is only the quantum configuration space taken
seriously. The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a
unitary transformation) of a state vector in the Hilbert space. I
c
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wro
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/20/2014 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
On 20 Nov 2014, at 13:59, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same
concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark,
Computationalism has gone trans-tegmark well before Tegmark.
with this. Why not compare the super c
On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one,
in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a
new clone, like an amoeba does.
28 matches
Mail list logo
