Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 17:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 9:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no >>> behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the the

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 15:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 7:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 2:51

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 2:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM,

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 11:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:46 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> w

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > *T**here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no >> behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical >> p

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >&g

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>> >&

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

, or whether it > is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The incompatibility > arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups necessarily exits in > MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the Born rule. > If you lived in any sort of universe where you were

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

; coins and always seeing heads 66% of the time, no matter what we do, but >> superdeterminism is basically saying that's just how it is the universe has >> preordained that humans flip coins such that they come up head's 66% of the >> time. >> >> Jason >> >> Jason >

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 05:00, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >> No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you >>> also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 04:20, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >> according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the >>> universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think >>&

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 00:03, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:54 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> But did (or could) superdeterminism choose the digits of Pi?* > > > According to superdeterminism, yes. And according to superdeterminism the > particular initial condition the universe was

Re: A new theory of consciousness: conditionalism

chines, just as a certain string of Latin characters might mean different things in different languages. The semantics seems dependent on the observer, and there may be multiple possible observers, no observer, in the case of a conscious computation a self-generated observer, and in the case of an i

Re: Life as electrons??

the idea that a device that can copy the functional organisation of the brain, like a computer upload, will have whatever consciousness the brain has. He shows this through a reductio ad absurdum argument. Note that this does not require proof that brains or a particular brain is conscious, it is

Re: AI and Interest rates

not spend it today. Instead, you will leave it in the bank, even if they offer low interest rates. Central banks also tend to lower interest rates in times if low inflation. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everythin

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 00:21, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023, 9:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 21:28, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2023, 12:30 AM Stat

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 21:28, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023, 12:30 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:59, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:56 PM Stat

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 14:47, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/24/2023 9:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:59, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:56 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >>

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:59, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:56 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 11:48, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >An RNG would be a bad design choice because it would be

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 11:48, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 06:46, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:20 PM Stat

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

ey make no objective difference and no subjective difference either? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 06:46, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:20 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 21:56, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 3:20 AM Stat

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 04:08, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/24/2023 10:41 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 02:14, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/24/2023 12:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 02:14, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/24/2023 12:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 15:37, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 1:15 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >>

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 21:56, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023, 3:20 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 15:37, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 1:15 AM Stat

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 15:37, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023, 1:15 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 04:03, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 7:15 AM Stat

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 04:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 7:15 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 21:09, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> As I see this thread, Terren and Stathis are both talking past

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

bstitution experiment, replicating the behaviour of the human through any means, such as training an AI not only on language but also movement, would also preserve consciousness, even though it does not simulate any physiological processes. Another way to say this is that it is not possible to

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:32 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 14:23, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 a

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 14:40, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:37 PM Terren Suydam > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 23 May 20

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 14:23, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 13:37, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 a

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 13:37, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:48, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2023

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:48, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 8:42 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:03, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2023

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:03, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 7:34 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 07:56, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> Many, myself included, are captivated by

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

d doesn’t really understand anything. This is a response to the Chinese room argument. How would I know if I really understand something or just think I understand something? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quo

Re: It's too late to stop GPT4 now

tion, which > might mean the singularity is on course for some time in the 2050s... Why such a long gap between gaining human level intelligence and the singularity? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything L

Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts)

ness-associated behaviour. If it’s EM fields (it probably isn’t) then EM fields would have some effect on behaviour, and if this effect could be replicated by some other means, the consciousness would also be replicated. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are

Re: The connectome and uploading

hy would silicon or gallium arsenide be so fundamentally different to this neurotransmitter that it obviously couldn’t explain lain consciousness? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To uns

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 12:18, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 8:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 04:12, Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Rememb

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

our, Boolean switching acting on whatever data is dumped into it can generate intelligent behaviour. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: Death, science, and politics

you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything

Re: Death, science, and politics

-KPXSKRG902Rg8vokZ6rq_%3DR9_jCtWXC3OYb3FL%3DEdMw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH-KPXSKRG902Rg8vokZ6rq_%3DR9_jCtWXC3OYb3FL%3DEdMw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this messa

Re: Thanksgiving

d an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6b4b3471-c58f-9346-fc5d-f1b97e85a360%40gmail.com > . > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 01:23, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make sure that >>> the man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

e was > caught. In 1998 he was finally executed, he never killed anybody after that > and I think we can be pretty sure he never will. > Removing a hazard, if that’s how you want to look at the legal system, does not require any consideration of the criteria for free will, but deter

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

use the first definition all the time. Laypeople who know a little about philosophy often seem unaware that the first definition is philosophically legitimate. > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 14:47, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 22:07, John Cl

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 22:07, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an >>> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 21:20, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:52 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *> you don't act of your own free will if you do something accidentally, >> or you are forced,* >> > > Everybody is always subje

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 18:52, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 5:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *> Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they >> think free will and determinism are compatible. * > > > I think before philo

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 21:53, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve >> identically, as would any supervening mental states.* > > > Yes. > > >

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

gt;>> If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude. >>>> >>>> >>>> You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds? >>>> >>> >>> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct New

Re: Scriptural refutation of the Transhumanist Movement

e bad, in the sense that God is depicted as an unpleasant and fickle tyrant. You start off with the premise that the Quran is both true and good, so your arguments aren’t going to work with anyone who already rejects both those premises. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message becau

Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College

il_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.c

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Sat, 14 May 2022 at 12:06, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:46 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *>>> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with >>>> MWI, it's explaining that there are probabilities* >>> &g

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

om/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Dn8ghJUMTt%3DU0L48ROnNYOpweXCa1sB0os140U8FNyA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Dn8ghJUMTt%3DU0L48ROnNYOpweXCa1sB0os140U8FNyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > -- Stathis Pap

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 12:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 12:12 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> Are you saying that probability in itself is incompatible with MWI or >> only that the particular probabilities are incompatible with MWI? &g

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 10:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:16 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:16 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 09:37, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:58 AM smitra wrote: >>>

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

istic program), and the characters in the simulation can’t decide to thwart it and measure something different so that they end up meeting with non-correlated results. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "

Re: Bell's Inequality and Many Worlds ( Was: The Nature of Contingency)

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 16:39, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 3/4/2022 9:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 12:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:23 AM John Clark >> wrote: >> >

Re: Bell's Inequality and Many Worlds ( Was: The Nature of Contingency)

> That's non-local. > Why can’t the correlation have occurred when the entangled particles were created? Measuring one particle pair then reveals which world the measurer is in, and therefore the state of the other pair, which is in the same world. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You

Re: Scientific American and Political Correctness

receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2nj7diWv3PKwmRVSJANy8mcOHryAFJdFvkRseNU38L9A%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2n

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 09:57, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:25 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:\ > >> *> It's a thought experiment. You are duplicated in two separate places, >> A and B, and the two copies can never meet, what is your expectation of >&

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 09:12, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 4:46 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > In the matter duplicating machine thought experiment it is meaningless to >>> ask "what is the probability that you will see city X" because the mean

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 08:15, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 2:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 09:48, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:15 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 09:48, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:15 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> > *> So if you say that there is a 50% chance the atom will decay in the >> next hour what does that mean, given that there is also a 100% ch

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 09:02, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 4:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *>>> But you have said in the past, with regard to copying experiments, >>>> that there is a 100% chance that you (i.e. John C

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 07:50, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 3:34 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >> You may ask, how different can "you" be before it no longer deserves >>> the right to be called "you"? I admit that limit is

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 04:01, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 10:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >*but** there are events such as the decay of an atom within a half life >> period that one version of you will see and another version of you will >>

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 21:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:31 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 20:29, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 20:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 19:35, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 19:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 18:12, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 18:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> The probabil

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> &

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

is> > hsx > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view th

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun,

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

theories instead of just catalogues of > observations. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ever

Re: Hossenfelder on superdeterminism

m formalism that incorporates the requires hidden > variables. The quotes of presumably otherwise rational people saying that determinism precludes free will and therefore science are quite shocking. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl

Re: Unbounded stupidity​ ​

/b08d637a-0ddc-37ed-b405-e81efed06265%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

Re: Nicki Minaj's Cousin's Friend's Boyfriend's Balls in Trinidad

age because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.co

Re: NYTimes.com: White House Seeks $65 Billion for ‘Apollo’ Plan to Prepare for Future Pandemics

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://

Re: Vaccine statistics

s discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d57da2d7-b539-445d-af78-e5c877f0357fn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d57da2d7-b539-445d-af78-e5c877f0357fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . &g

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

better than > we can directly see consciousness in other people, Evolution can only see > intelligent behavior and it can't select for something it can't see. And > yet Evolution managed to produce consciousness at least once and probably > many billions of times. I therefore conclude

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 17:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 4:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 14:14, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 2:08 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 14:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 2:08 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 13:01, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 13:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 09:02, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 11:29 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 09:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 11:29 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 22:17, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> >>> It can be a metaphysical truth without there being any dualist

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 22:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 9:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 21:32, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 21:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 12:29, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 12:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>>

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 12:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 12:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 11:58, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 2:37 AM smitra wrote: >>> >>>>

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

ed! > One is the probability that a certain branch exists, the other is the subjective probability that a being with the feeling that he is a unique individual persisting through time will experience a particular branch. You may say that this feeling is based on a delusion but we still have it

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 08:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 8:44 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 08:33, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 8:04 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 08:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 8:04 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 11:51, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 5:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: &

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 11:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 5:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> You suspected right, I am asking a more basic question about >> self-sampling and the validity of probabilities when a version of the >> ob

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 21:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 10:58, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:45 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 10:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:45 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:15, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 9:07 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote:

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >