On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
he assumed this time asymmetry was fundamental, not a mere statistical
effect related to the low entropy of the initial conditions of the
experiment.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Read Bell's paper and you will see it is rife with QM language:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf
I never said Bell didn't know
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:44 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
he assumed this time asymmetry was fundamental, not a mere
statistical effect related to the low entropy of the initial conditions
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 05:51, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions,
True. As I've said many times Bell made
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric (well,
CPT-symmetric, but the implications are the same for Bell's inequality and
thermodynamics
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 07:13, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
They seem to have in common the idea that the maximum entropy can
continually increase due to the expansion of space. But I don't think
Layzer's account works
Even if this connection between entanglement and wormholes holds up, I
don't think it automatically means quantum physics is nonlocal and we must
discard the many-worlds claim to preserve locality. Keep in mind that in
general relativity nothing can actually pass from one end of an
Einstein-Rosen
Jason Resch wrote:
indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this new
type of randomness (discovered by Bruno).
I don't think Bruno claims to have discovered the notion that there can be
first-person randomness even in a universe which is deterministic from a
third-person
It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same
present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous.
What is experimentally proven is that two clocks A and B can show different
times at the same coordinate time in some inertial frame--and coordinate
But you haven't really given an argument for why there has to be something
happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here
on earth for cosmology to make sense--that seems to be just an assertion
of faith on your part. Cosmology is perfectly coherent as an attempt to
Have you considered that people understand what you mean, but just don't
*agree* with your intuition? I am an eternalist rather than a presentist
(see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) and
The notion that everything travels through spacetime at the speed of
light was popularized by Brian Greene, but it only works if you choose a
rather odd definition of speed through spacetime, one which I haven't
seen any other physicists make use of. See my post #3 on the thread at
Hi Edgar, thanks for the reply. But do you agree or disagree with the point
that since different frames are considered equally valid and they define
simultaneity differently, either there would have to be no experimental
means to determine which frame's definition of simultaneity is correct (so
to but never quite reach.
If I consider the statement Jesse Mazer will never think this statement is
true, I may imagine the perspective of someone else and see that from
their perspective it must be true if Jesse's thinking is trustworthy, but
then I'll catch myself and see that this imaginary perspective
axiomatic system, including arithmetic,
where we don't normally think of the relationships between propositions as
causal ones.
Jesse
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:03, Jesse Mazer wrote:
I don't have institutional access but I
I don't have institutional access but I was able to read it online, though
not to download it as a PDF (I just copy-and-pasted all the text for future
reference instead). It's great to see each step of the argument laid out in
greater detail than I've seen on the list (admittedly I don't
I think with black holes there's a physically natural coarse-graining
defined by the no-hair theorem which says that in classical general
relativity, the only distinguishing characteristics of black holes are
mass, charge and angular momentum, they bear no other traces of the
particular
,
and the Final Goal.
OK.
Everything is as God wills and allows it to be.
I don't know.
Bruno
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue
agree that God did
' it is if it limits God? We believe that
God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, and the Final
Goal. Everything is as God wills and allows it to be.
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Most theistic philosophers
from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change
the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and
not-perfect, with perfect having exactly the same meaning in both cases
wrote:
You explained it yourself: '
so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, '.
Trying to answer it would be just pretending to be 'all-wise' and
consequently making a fool of myself :)
Samiya
Sent from my iPhone
On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:13 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma
that I've read of philosophers and theologians, discourages me as they only
seem to go round and round in their efforts to make sense of it.
Samiya
On 03-Dec-2013, at 12:28 AM, Jesse Mazer
laserma...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'laserma...@gmail.com');
wrote:
But you do make
Chalmers a materialist? That seems like a pretty bizarre and/or uninformed
description, given that the idea he is best-known for is that the hard
problem of first-person qualia can never be solved by materialist
explanations (even if the so-called easy problem of explaining
third-person behaviors,
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue
agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have
the power to alter them (or any other necessary truths, which for theists
might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as
prefers panpsychism as a solution to the
metaphysical problem of the relation between consciousness and third-person
objective reality)
On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue
agree that God did not create
Dark matter behaves pretty convincingly like large clumps of matter that,
aside from not interacting with normal matter via non-gravitational forces,
obeys the same sort of dynamical laws as any other form of matter, see the
following for a good quick summary (note particularly the stuff about the
I suspect this is one of those fake quotes that gets circulated around the
internet; searching for everything we call real and bohr on
books.google.com I mostly just find it in various religious/spiritual
books, nothing scholarly (and nothing dating back to before 1986).
Jesse
On Fri, Nov 15,
, if that is real?
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect this is one of those fake quotes that gets circulated around
the internet; searching for everything we call real and bohr on
books.google.com I mostly just find it in various religious/spiritual
chemical saturated moonscape as
well as sucking up vast amounts of water from other potential uses --
including agriculture. Will the bitumen sweated out of that sand be worth
the ultimate costs to get it?
On Thursday, November 7, 2013 11:24 AM, Jesse Mazer
laserma...@gmail.com wrote
://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-solar-challenge-natural-gas).
Are you just assuming the future will be like the past, or do you have
any other basis for predicting solar will always be just a fraction of
world energy?
Jesse
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:50 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Fur sure, that was the truth. Now we got's shale gas, which seems to pay a
lot better, is safer to go after, and is cleaner, carbon-wise. Unless you
are buying into technological unemployment (robots, software) then we have
to face the
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually
helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower
prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not,
and is in
Usually you can track down the source of any genuine quote by entering it
on books.google.com, this one shows up here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zfM8IAAJlpg=PP1pg=PA383
It's from an essay Maxwell wrote called Analogies in Nature, which begins
on this page (two pages are missing from
Roger, can you please stop using this list as an outlet for any thoughts
you have about politics and such? If it isn't related to the multiverse or
some other fundamental metaphysical issues like consciousness, it doesn't
belong here.
Jesse
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Roger Clough
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
In a universe of functionalism or comp, I would expect that this would
never happen, as my brain should always prioritize the information made
available by any eye that is open over that of an eye which is closed.
I
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual
neural
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Richard,
On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
There was another article about this group's work back in September, at
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394--
it seems as though this is not really about contradicting the
mathematical form of uncertainty in the equations of quantum mechanics, but
, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it
says:
'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my
understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be
self-referential proof
A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says:
'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my
understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be
self-referential proof by contradiction, except to mention that Penrose in
Shadows of the
suggesting he had read through
the whole thing carefully? If not it's possible he skimmed it and missed
that sentence, or just read the abstract and decided it didn't interest
him, but sent the note out of politeness.
Jesse
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning
some
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote:
To make the general idea more clear , suppose we are proving the well-
known formula S = ah/2 for the area of a triangle. Our proof will
necessarily begin as follows:
“Let us consider AN ARBITRARY triangle…” Here
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote:
*The notion of choosing isn't actually important--if a proof says
something like pick an arbitrary member of the set X, and you will find it
obeys Y, this is equivalent to the statement every member of the set X
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote:
It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite
set since, as is known from psycology, a man can consider no more than 7
objects simultaneously.
That's just about the number of distinct
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin
aaloks...@gmail.comwrote:
3)We have agfeed that the choice of an arbitrary element is not a random
chaice and is not a choice determinate by some law. 4)Therefore I do call
it a free will choice in mathematics. One can consider it as a
.
Jesse
===
On Apr 23, 12:03 am, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
1.
One postulate of SRT takes vacuum as reference frame.
Another postulate
some good arguments against the
plausibility of such interpretations are offered at
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/sci.physics.relativity/xD0x1urGWfo/YtmTWIYQ8aYJ
Jesse
On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM, socra
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
1.
One postulate of SRT takes vacuum as reference frame.
Another postulate of SRT takes inertial reference frame (s).
No, none of the postulates take the vacuum as a
What about the idea that the choices you make are likely to reflect those of
an infinite number of similar individuals? It's sort of like the issue of
voting or trying to minimize your energy usage to help the environment, even
if your individual choice makes very little difference, if everyone
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
snip
On the contrary, the singularity is in the description. Which is why no
physicist
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/15/2011 6:59 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
Any physically significant boost would act to alter the scale of
Plankian effects, that is what general covariance basically tosses out any
physically real notion of space-time points what ever
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/2/2011 10:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I'm just interested in how we would decide who won? If there is some test
you can suggest or some theoretical development you anticipate it would be
very relevant to the
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 7/24/2011 12:05 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
On 7/22/2011 8:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jason,
None of those papers address the concern of narratability
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
We seem to be talking past each other. I am thinking about the notion
of time as a dimension and its origin and implications. You seem to just
assume its existence. I ask why?.
That's not how I
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime, then just
consider block time a collection of events separated by certain distances
and directions from
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jul 24, 12:05 am, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Substantivalism doesn't treat spacetime as a substance in the sense of
necessarily being made up of discrete grainy bits (which is all that the
gamma
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jason,
None of those papers address the concern of narratability that I am
considering. In fact they all assume narratability. I am pointing out that
thinking of time as a dimension has a big problem! It
Craig, I wonder what you'd think of Chalmers' Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia,
Dancing Qualia argument at http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html which to me
makes a strong argument for organizational invariance, which says physical
systems organized the same way should produce the same qualia, so
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:50:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Thanks, I always seem to like Chalmers perspectives. In this case I
think that the hypothesis of physics I'm working from changes how I
see this
Please, seek medical help. If you're right, you lose nothing and might
convince at least the psychiatrist you talk to. If I'm right, you get
cured. It can't do you any harm, but leaving what looks to me like a
serious illness untreated may well do you some serious harm.
Look, I've
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:10:23 -0700
Subject: RE: Civilization-level quantum suicide
From: her...@acm.org
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Mark, if you're not kidding here I honestly think you may be experiencing
some kind of mental disorder, perhaps a manic state (good
Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit.
Because I know that I know how to persuade him of the truth based on
evidence *and* emotion. I can prove to him, personally, that I am God, and
that I created the universe. And he will believe it. Because I can show
him a
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Sure we can, because part of the meaning of random, the very thing that
lost us the information, includes each square having the same measure
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
I suppose it depends what you mean
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would
necessarily
start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:53 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com
rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably most of you are familiar with this already, BUT, just in case
anyone has any interesting comments...
If physicalism is true, your memories are almost certainly false.
Consider:
Entropy is a
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I think
it's an example of the radiation arrow of time making a
From: stath...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:23:55 +1100
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 23 February 2010 04:45, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems that these thought experiments inevitably lead to considering
a
digital
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.comwrote:
The point about amplification is that all normal detection events
require amplification, such as photographic film, photomultipliers and
so on. We never detect a quantum event directly, but rather the result
of
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Penrose also devotes chapter 7 of his book The Emperor's New Mind
to the topic of Cosmology and the Arrow of Time (parts of which can be
viewed at
http://books.google.com/books?id=DNd2K6mxLpIClpg=PP1pg=PA506#v
I've been having some trouble with the formatting of messages from my
hotmail account, so I'm trying to see if I can send messages to the list
from my gmail account instead...just a test, nothing to see here folks...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hmm, the last message did show up on googlegroups at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/c514d9710a49e9b0but
it didn't show up in my inbox. Maybe there's just a random delay?
Anyway, I'll try again and see what happens...
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Jesse
of the everything-list emails for a few days.
--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Jack, to me the idea that counterfactuals would be essential to
defining what counts as an implementation has always seemed
counterintuitive for reasons separate from the Olympia
of the everything-list emails for a few days.
--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Jack, to me the idea that counterfactuals would be essential to
defining what counts as an implementation has always seemed
counterintuitive for reasons separate from the Olympia
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
My last post worked (I got it in my email). I'll repost one later and then
post on the measure thread - though it's still a very busy time for me so
maybe not today.
--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:58:20 -0800
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
From: charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Feb 23, 7:13 pm, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Having read the book a while ago, my memory is that Price offered this
idea
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Thu, 2/11/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
MGA is more
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:42:17 -0800
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
To: everything
.
--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Jack, to me the idea that counterfactuals would be essential to defining
what counts as an implementation has always seemed counterintuitive for
reasons separate from the Olympia or movie-graph argument. The
thought-experiment I'd
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:42:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
From: charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Feb 23, 6:08 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
If we accept what the laws of physics appear to say,
that nature is for the
You can see a list of messages by date here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/maillist.html
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:31:14 +0200
Subject: list archive
From: m.dobsi...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi everybody,
I had a hard disk failure
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:21:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Peter,
the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:13:54 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
Flammarion wrote:
...
We might call these three notions of existence Q-existence, M-
existence and C-existence for short. My argument with you
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:56:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 19 Aug, 21:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:23:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: david.ny...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 20 Aug, 10:09, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal
activity.
Seems like this post didn't go through, so I'll resend it:
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
009/8/19 Flammarion
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
I completely agree that **assuming
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
However, some physicists - Julian Barbour for one - use
the term in a way that clearly has reference, as I think does Bruno.
Any Platonists
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 10:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:32:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 12:00, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
explain.
Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is
This leads to major difficulties, even before approaching the
consciousness
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
round.
Are you saying that
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
explain.
But what is this primary matter
David Nyman wrote:
On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen John Baez suggest that
For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut).
In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of
301 - 400 of 676 matches
Mail list logo
