On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>&g
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:05 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Br
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Brent Meeker
>
>
> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy
> reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.
>
>
> I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>&g
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds
>> later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x
>> 10^60 = states (more
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote:
> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really
> don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct
> words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA.
>
>
>
Bruno provided a great definition and
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:18 AM wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:51:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 07:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 5:27:08 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 9:13 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 5:52 PM, wrote:
>
> >
>> *I'm from Missouri; SHOW ME! *
>
>
> I show you the double slit experiment. David Deutsch said if other worlds
> are just a interpretation of the double slit experiment then dinosaur are
> just
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one
> > Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in
> > one
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>> They do not "belong to different branches&quo
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal
>
> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave
> function all the way along. There are
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/7/2018 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>>
>>
>> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if the
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Bruno Marchal
>
>
> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information
> transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality interpretation
> of special relativity, notably well described by Maudlin. Maudlin
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:19 PM Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Jason, people,
>
>
Hi Bruno,
Thank you for this. I've been trying to digest it over the past few days.
>
> I will send my post on the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness later.
> It is too long.
>
> So, let us proceed with the
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:38 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/1/2018 10:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/2018 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/1/2018 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2018,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:39 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/1/2018 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2018, at 21:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, J
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:54 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> What I was refe
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> What I was referring to with the "can only be seen" were the *effects* of
> the interference, be they the final results of the quantum computation or
> the light
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:43 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 4:47:13 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch
> wrote:
>
> >>
>>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
>>> communication and a influence and you're just changin
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:15 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett
>> w
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:01 AM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fr
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>>
>> You can use "itself" only if this "it" can be i
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:06 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 12:57:34 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jason Resch
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:36 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:12 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fro
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>
>>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away. I flip my coin 100
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * > A concept of "influence" without an
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra wrote:
>
>
>> * >A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
>> ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the
>> particular interpretation used, it has no
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:22 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:38 PM Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
&
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:36 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:12 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Bruce Kellett <
>> bhkell.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:22 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 7:39 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Does it exist and happen, or does the final result me
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:12 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>&g
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 7:39 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Does it exist and happen, or does the final result merely materialize
>>> magically like the live or dead cat?
>>>
>>
>> *In my view, we don't know
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:49 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:17:16 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical
>>> computers. There are some algorithms that
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:41 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:08:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical
>> computers. There are some algorithms that allow
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical
> computers. There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate
> something faster; but the domain and range is the same.
>
> So absent that reason does it follow that
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave
>>> function is merely a
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch
>
>
> If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have
> demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses
> so plainly tell us (and you), it is bec
Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave
function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of
experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it
does things we cannot.
Jason
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM, wrote:
> Up
t;> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:26:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>&
.
Jason
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:03 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>you make this error when you say only matter and energy can perform
>> computations, because those are the only computations you have seen.*
>>
>
>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
TOE that assumes no more than Integers and their relations.
Possibly permits the derivation of all physical laws purely from number
theory.
Jason
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch
> To: Everything List
> Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 11:40 pm
> Subject: Re: Do
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > Other mathematics might wo
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute
> > simplest and with the least assumptions. It comes from pure
> > mathematical truth concerning in
mathematics? Facetiously, what not a toaster-oven, or a Hafnium, or
> Chloride atom? What is innate about Diophantine, that yields such awe? Does
> it propagate exponentially? Does it yield new information?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch
> To: Everything
onential Diophantine
> equation* is one in which exponents on terms can be unknowns.
>
> ***I'd guess no-based on the above description***
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:24 am
> Subject: Re: D
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you
>> but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile
>> fie
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>
>>> those theories have nothing to do with our self identification so why
>>> are we even talking about it?
>>>
>>
>>
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by
>> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportati
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:15 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>> >>
>>> We're right back to Bruno's definition problem. I can't answer your
>>> question until you make clear what you mean by "Abby&quo
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:09 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>> *>Suppose Abby the guinea pig wants to travel long distance, say from
>> Earth to Mars. On Earth she enters the scanner which scans her body and
>&g
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:23 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That would be true if the man were like you and didn't understand what the
> words "YOU WILL BE DUPLICATED" mean.
>
>
>>> >>
>>> Bruno, you're always talking about definitions but
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
John,
See the paper I linked recently in the "Solomonoff's induction" thread:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf
In particular, it describes the same first person indeterminacy in the form
of a faulty teleporter device thought experiment, and shows why this is an
important and fundamental
It looks like Bruno's idea of extracting physics from all computations is
catching on. I came across this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference
And this idea (from the 1960s) is being used in recent papers, such as this
one:
e 29, 2018, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>> > **
>> *You presume there can be no true facts about nothing?*
>>
>
> If a fact existed about nothing then there is something. Maybe you think
> I'm being unfair bu
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>1. Premise: No thing (nothing) exists.*
>> *2. By "1" it follows that "0 things exist" is true. *
>>
>
> If
>
> "
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
> On 28 June 2018 at 09:19, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >> Here is one for you (and that list):
> >>
> >> Tomorrow you and another prisoner are to be executed. But you will both
> be
> >> spared if you can succeed in the following game. You and
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:30 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>
>>> I'll be damned if I understand how all the Diophantine equations in the
>>> world put together can store one bit of information, much less a unl
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>
>>> You could argue that all modern science has done is prove the vacuum is
>>> not nothing and although Leibniz was wrong about that the question r
In another thread Brent suggested the "philosopher's nothing" was
incoherent. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on
establishing/proving its inconsistency. Thereby proving that something must
exist. Here is some idea I had:
1. Premise: No thing (nothing) exists.
2. By "1" it follows that
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> Logic, laws, and principles are adopted after the fact to clean up
> problems perceived in intuitive inferences; and their solutions are not
> always consistent (c.f. Russell's definite descriptions vs free logics, or
> Graham Priest
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:59 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>Study what diophantine equations are capable of (for example,
>> considers the examples I provided in my original post), and you will see
>> they possess an
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/25/2018 5:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/2018 6:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>&
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 4:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >* Leibniz: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"*
>
>
>
> By "nothing" Leibniz meant a vacuum, today we know far more about the
&
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/2018 6:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:30 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Jason Resch
>> wrote:
>>
>> >* *
>>>
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Russell Standish
> wrote:
>
> *>> * If I define physics as the thing that can tell the difference
>>> between a correct computation and a incorrect computation and between a
>>> corrupted memory and a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:30 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >* *
>> *The only thing I am asking is:*
>> *1) Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.*
>> *2) ??? -> Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.*
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Jun 2018, at 02:18, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> In solving Hilbert's 1
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch < jasonre...@gmail.com>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Bruce Kellett <
> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> There are only two photons, but each has two possibl
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/21/2018 6:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/21/2018 3:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>
Correction: I meant to say if we *ignore* Boltzmann brain type
computations. (And only focus on larger computations that contain
self-aware sub-processes).
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>&g
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/21/2018 3:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/21/2018 7:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>&
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/21/2018 7:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/20/2018 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Who is more dogmatic about their world view, the MWI'ists or the CI'ers?
> Which sounds more like a religion, "Everything exists, we just can't see
> it." or "Shut up and calculate."?
>
>
>
"Nor can I ever sufficiently admire [Copernicus
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:49 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> > **
>> *We can use physical analogies to reason about mathematics,*
>>
> We can't reason about ANYTHING without physics, that's why
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>
>>> If mathematics was more fundamental than physics then Intel would be a
>>> ridiculously unnecessary company and would have gone bankrupt
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/20/2018 9:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2018 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> Most
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/20/2018 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2018 7:10 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>&
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch < jasonre...@gmail.com>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Bruce Kellett <
> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> I find Baylock's exposition of counterfactual indefi
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/2018 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Most of these objections to CI are answered by decoherence theory.
>>>
>>
>> I have no clue how to interpret decoherence with a collapse theory.
>>
>
> You use decoherence theory until you
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/2018 7:10 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/2018 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/2018 6:55 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/2018 4:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>> It will take
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/2018 6:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/2018 3:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Block time plu
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> From: Jason Resch < jasonre...@gmail.com>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Kellett <
> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch >
>>
>>
>> O
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:36 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>
>>> No I'm not disputing that, but computational relations couldn't exist
>>> without computations, and computations couldn't exist without matter t
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >* *
>> *I am not sure I am seeing the relevance of your comments to what I
>> said. Are you disputing that computational relations are embodied by
701 - 800 of 2377 matches
Mail list logo
