- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John,
Perhaps I have misunderstood if you were presenting an alternative theory:
it's easy to misunderstand
From: Brent Meeker
...
But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat
steak is not perfect for me.
People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a
PU will be.
I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU
would be.
W. C. wrote:
From: Brent Meeker
...
But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat
steak is not perfect for me.
People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a
PU will be.
I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a
]
To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John M writes:
Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a
steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle.
The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice
to
work and if unplugged
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote:
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be
a quantum
PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote:
1Z,
I don't know what you mean.
That is unfortunate, because as far as I am concerned everyhting
I am saying is obvious. (Have you read
Norman Samish wrote:
Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your
statement. It seems to boil down to Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do
with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum
superpositions.
Correct.
Fair enough.
When I read
s and
listen.Norman~~- Original
Message - From: "1Z" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Everything
List" everything-list@googlegroups.comSent: Sunday, August 06, 2006
11:06 AMSubject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: Thanks - with your help
Norman Samish wrote:
I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it
well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of
MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it
again.
I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David
Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John M writes:
Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a
steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle.
The 'cat' specifies IMO
'original' and lost text, it was snatched
away and mailed.
The two are pretty different.
Redface John
- Original Message -
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Stathis:
I know
Norman Samish wrote:
I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I
intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI
too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again.
This is diusputed, e.g. in
From: Brent Meeker
I don't think it's possible, because perfect is subjective. Perfect for
the lion is bad for the antelope.
Such problem doesn't exist in PU.
In PU, there is no food chain like A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc..
Perfect beings (both living and non-living) mean no
W. C. wrote:
From: Brent Meeker
I don't think it's possible, because perfect is subjective. Perfect for
the lion is bad for the antelope.
Such problem doesn't exist in PU.
In PU, there is no food chain like A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc..
Perfect beings (both living and
I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain
our universe.
Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by
our limitations
(as designed by the so-called Creator if any).
So I always think it's possible to produce a perfect universe by
Hi,
The problem with perfection is that this word has *no* absolute meaning.
Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning.
Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you would
be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a
Good question. But I don't think we need to define perfect.
You can check the dictionary to know its meaning.
Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com The problem with perfection is that
this word has *no* absolute meaning.
Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection.
Le Samedi 5 Août 2006 13:12, W. C. a écrit :
Good question. But I don't think we need to define perfect.
You can check the dictionary to know its meaning.
Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU.
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
Are we reinventing the religion?
Yes.
Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the
problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can
approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the
OK John, I say more on your post.
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read
(and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require
: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
Are we reinventing the religion?
Yes.
Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve
, August 04, 2006 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may
be
a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
computer in action
Norman Samish wrote:
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be
a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
computer in action.
Quantum computers are only
From: Quentin Anciaux
Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection.
OK. If you want more, I will say perfection in PU is *every being is perfect
and feels perfect (if it has feeling)*.
This doesn't mean that every being is exactly the same. They may have
different
is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without
computational assistance?
Norman
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to
work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight.
What
Message -
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled
28 matches
Mail list logo
