Re: The size of the universe

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:31 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of >> reality: >> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ >> >> It's first of what I hope will

Re: The size of the universe

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:26 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of >> reality: >> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ >> >> It's first of what I hope will

Re: The size of the universe

Speaking of large but finite numbers, I think sometimes we forget just how big some finite numbers can be: This article really stretched my brain/hurt my head: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/100-grahams-number.html Numbers can be so big they become scary. Jason On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:37

Re: The size of the universe

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:16 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/26/2020 3:33 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegrou

Re: The size of the universe

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/20/2020 6:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the > > (phenomenological) physical reality? Or the

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com&

Re: STEP 3

On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com&

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: The size of the universe

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:23 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 21 May 2020, at 21:43, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:33 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 20 May 2020, at 18:45, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >

Re: The size of the universe

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:33 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 May 2020, at 18:45, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 19 May 2020, at 05:20, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> I recently wrote an arti

Re: The size of the universe

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/20/2020 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:39 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Hi Jason, >> >> When yo

Re: The size of the universe

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/20/2020 6:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the > > (phenomenological) physical reality? Or the

Re: The size of the universe

sion hypothesis <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576511003304>, but that might be due to my hopeful nature. Jason > > I have no certainty, and this needs to progress in the universal machine > canonical physics. > > Bruno > > > > On 19 May 2020, at 07:1

Re: The size of the universe

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 May 2020, at 05:20, Jason Resch wrote: > > I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of > reality: > https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ > > It's first of what

Re: The size of the universe

howed him Friedmann's > papers. Lamaitre did invent the term "cosmic atom" and he connected the > solutions to Hubble's measurements. > > Brent > > On 5/18/2020 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the

The size of the universe

I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of reality: https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers many topics including the

Re: MWI and time

Hi Eva, The founder of this list published an interpretation of QM that embodies both timelessness and many worlds. He calls it: "a really simple interpretation of quantum mechanics": http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt So I think you are right it isn't needed in any objective sense.

Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

There has been controversy in the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the position-momentum uncertainty. However, can these not be viewed equivalently in

Re: Maybe things are getting better in the US

This site has a good mechanism for tracking changes in trends, and is updated daily: https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/ If you know any doctors, nurses, or hospital administrators, this document has best known practices for treatment and prophylaxis, and is also regularly updated:

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models. The expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is creating energy. Jason On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > Jason thinks I must be suffering from buyer's remorse because I "spent > $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic" he concludes this because > on December 2

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:58 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> I guess you never clicked the link I provided at the start of this >> thread. * > > > I've done a lot better than click on a link that provides a brief &

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 22 Sep 2019, at 11:43, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> past Step 3.* > > >

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:51 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *> if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as >> Carroll accept it, according to Jason) * > > > If Jason thinks Carroll accepts it then Jason is full of shit.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/22/2019 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > every conceivable pattern that is possible can happen and would happen > > No. That is NOT the theory. Th

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:36 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:39 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:34 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:34 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 19, 2019, Alan Grayson >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I don't b

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Sunday, September 22, 2019, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> past Step 3.* > > > If Jason Resch reads Carroll's book as John Clark has done t

Re: Quantum Supremacy

Some more details in this article: https://fortune.com/2019/09/20/google-claims-quantum-supremacy/ Jason On Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 5:59 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:27 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since quantum computers are in a

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Thursday, September 19, 2019, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 6:56:25 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 2:31:18 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:55 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >>I think the guy is a bit of an idiot. He starts off badly by equating >>> intelligence and consciousness and then it gets worse when he defines the >>> personal pronoun "I" by what

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/19/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> You are just muddling the point. Computers don't evolve by random > >> variation with descent and natural (or artificial selection).

Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

Like Max Tegmark, in "Our Mathematical Universe", who described how duplication of the person results in an inability to perfectly predict future outcomes and experiences, in this interview Sean Carroll describes how even with perfect knowledge of the universe and it's evolution one could not make

Re: Quantum immortality

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 5:02 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> This is exactly the break that occurred going from mind-brain identity >> theory to multiple-realizability theories >> (functionalism/computationalism/mechanism

Re: Quantum immortality

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 7:18 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > *With mechanism* [...] > > I thought I knew what "mechanism" mente today but quickly realized I was > entirely wrong because immediately after those two words you added "*you > are not

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] A modest proposal

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:25 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2019, at 23:27, John Clark wrote: > > I have a modest proposal, it's a low tech way to find out once and for all > if the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, and as > a side effect make you rich. First

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:31 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ >> > > Jason; it turns out you were right about the consensus among

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:05 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Sun,

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:45 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > and COOLER after 380,000 years had elapsed. All of the foregoing makes a >> decent case for a universe which was very very tiny right after the BB. >> AG >> > > I still see no connection between the temperature at time

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:06 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:46:27 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:06 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:46:27 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:36 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On

Re: Entropy of early universe

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 1:35 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 10:07 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> If the early universe, say before t

Re: Entropy of early universe

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 10:07 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> If the early universe, say before the emergence of the CMBR, consisted of >> a random collection of electrons and photons, wouldn't this correspond to a >>

Re: Entropy of early universe

Lazer says the expansion of the universe creates an increased difference between the current entropy and the maximum possible entropy: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/layzer/growth_of_order/ Thereby introducing room for entropy to increase further, and giving the

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:36 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Fri,

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:00 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 1:55:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 2:55 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Fri,

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 2:44 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:34:18 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Fri,

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Friday, September 13, 2019, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:42:00 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:25 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:24:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13

Re: Quantum immortality

On Friday, September 13, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't have to remem

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:25 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:24:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:25 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > Without an ever expanding memory, you are limited to experiencing at most > M^2 states, where M is your memory capacity in bits. If M is finite, then > infinite years don't matter, you will begin to revisit previous states. &g

Re: Quantum immortality

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 A

Re: A modest proposal

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:28 PM John Clark wrote: > I have a modest proposal, it's a low tech way to find out once and for all > if the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, and as > a side effect make you rich. First you buy one Powerball lottery ticket, > the next drawing

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/11/2019 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegrou

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 3:15 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal wrote > > >> if the computational capacity of the universe is finite (and I'm not >> saying it is I'm saying if) then n+1 can NOT always be divided by 2 and >> Euclid was flat out wrong. >> >> *> You

Re: Quantum immortality

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> >

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegrou

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum > > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 5:19 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:42 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > >> *> Is a point moving up in down forever in some time dimension different >> from the sin function sin(t), for all t? * >> > > Moving a point? If a

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:15 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> > And natural numbers are not machinery and no other sort of number is > either. Machinery needs change and change needs matter. > > You never answered the question I posed regarding

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 11:36 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but you'll >> never find a program that outputs a proof of 2 + 2 = 5 in any consistent &

Re: Quantum Foam

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:57 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:52 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> Is the existence of the quantum foam, with virtual particles incessantly >> coming into existence and being annihilated, generally accepted? If I >> recall correctly, Bruce was

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:37 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> But he wasn't smart enough to immediately reject the notion of >> computation without physical execution on a computer.* >> > > Probably because

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:04 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > > *You sound just like Minsky here* ( https://www.youtube.com/ >> watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs ) *debating possible things vs. real things.* >> > > Marvin Minsky was

Re: Quantum Foam

uce wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:40 PM Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bruce Kellett >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jason Resch >>>>> wrote

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:33 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2019 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > What does "distinct" mean in that? It's a distinction you make because >>>>> you c

Re: Quantum Foam

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:35 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:32 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:12 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2019 5:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegrou

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2019 5:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > One not necessary, >> > > If every possible mathematical structure exists, then everything > (inc

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:38 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:27 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> But if the laws of physics are deterministic,* >> > > They're not. > > John K Clark > > > Which one's aren't? Jason -- You received

Re: Quantum Foam

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:32 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> These videos provide a good introduction: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5rAGfjPSWE >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG52mXN-uWI >> >&

Re: Quantum Foam

These videos provide a good introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5rAGfjPSWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG52mXN-uWI Virtual particles are the basis of all particle interactions in QED, called the jewel of physics for having made the most accurate predictions of any physical theory.

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:40 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:06 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > >> Add 2 +2 on your computer. Observe the output. Hit your computer as >>> hard as you can with the hammer. Add 2 +2 on your computer again. Observe >>>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2019, at 03:54, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:03 AM Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, August

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 6:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:03 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:07 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:50 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>>>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 9:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 6:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 9:05 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:26 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>>>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:09 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:14 AM Russell Standish > wrote: > > *> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *This is all different from John Clark's argument that something >> mustexist to breathe fire into all the computations. He calls thatsomething >>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:50 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:10 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:42 PM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:26 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Yes and insurance

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:03 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:03 PM Bruno Marchal >>> wrote: >>> >&g

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 2:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com&

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 12:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 4:30 AM John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:16 AM Jaso

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/2019 12:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > What's the difference between abstract and concrete? I think it's only a > matter of relative perspective. Ot

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:03 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 25 Aug 2019, at 14:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 9:39 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 25 Aug 2019, at 10:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> The

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/24/2019 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:51 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:16 PM

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/24/2019 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > The mind is a pattern distinct from any of it's physical incarnations. > > What does "distinct&

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 4:30 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:16 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> The mind is a pattern distinct from any of it's physical incarnations.* > > > A pattern must be a pattern of something, and whatever that something is > it

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:10 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:42 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:51 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:16 PM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>&

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:51 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:16 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Saturday, August 24, 2019, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:01 PM Russell Standish >>> wrote: >>> &g

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Saturday, August 24, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:01 PM Russell Standish > wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 07:34:26PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything >> List wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 8/24/2019 6:31 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >> > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at

Re: Are proofs equivalent to dovetailing computations?

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:52 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 24 Aug 2019, at 00:23, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 5:17 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 16 Aug 2019, at 19:06, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Would Chaitin's c

Re: Are proofs equivalent to dovetailing computations?

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 5:17 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Aug 2019, at 19:06, Jason Resch wrote: > > Would Chaitin's constant also qualify as a compact description of the > universal dovetailing (though being a single real number, rather than a set > of ratio

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >