Title: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's
Ab
Dear John,
Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
He believes in a unique material reality (although he does
not believe in a wave packet reduction, particles follow
only one branch of the universal superpositions,
Wei Dai wrote:
How useful is modal logic in dealing with these unknowable and branching
futures? Modal logic is the logic of possibility and necessity,
but to make decisions you need to reason about probabilities rather than
modalities.
This is true only for the antic aristotelian alethic modal
On 06-Sep-02, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
He believes in a unique material reality (although he does
not believe in a wave packet reduction, particles follow only
one branch of the universal superpositions, with Bohm). So
Bohm is
Brent Meeker wrote:
Bohm's QM is empirically identical with non-relativistic
Schroedinger QM - makes exactly the same predictions. So what
does it have to do with AI and the duplication of brains?
We (John + me) were refering to Bohm's book the implicate order where
Bohm takes some non
Jesse Mazer wrote
Ok, I think I see where my mistake was. I was thinking that
decoherence just referred to interactions between a system and the
external environment, but what you seem to be saying is that it can
also refer to an internal effect where interactions among the
components
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fri. Sept. 6, 2002 8:36AM
After my discouragement of yesterday, I have decided to give myself one more
chance to try to be compatible with everything-list. I have just
downloaded J. Schmidthuber's *A computer scientist's view of life, the
universe, and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote
Ok, I think I see where my mistake was. I was thinking that decoherence
just referred to interactions between a system and the external
environment, but what you seem to be saying is that it can also refer to
an internal effect where interactions
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fri. Sept. 6, 2002 11:45AM
I have read about half of J. Schmidthuber's *A computer scientist's view of
life, the universe, and everything,* (1997), and he has interesting ideas
and clarity of presentation, but I have to disagree with him on a number of
At 12:20 PM -0700 on 9/6/02, Osher Doctorow wrote:
Thus, not only can
conditional probability not model events of probability 0, but it cannot
even model events of probability close to 0 (Rare Events).
Nonsense. It's done all the time for events of low probability.
Bill
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:32:49PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
This was an interesting paper but unfortunately the key point seemed
to pass by without proof. On page 5, the proposal is to use entangled
particles to try to send a signal by measuring at one end in a sequence
of different bases
Title: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's Ab
Bruno M wrote:
Friday, September 06, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, (or
whatever)
Dear John,
Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
SNIP
In its "implicate order" Bohm is explicitely
Brent wrote
Friday, September 06, 2002 11:48 AM:
(Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor's
AbsoluteInfinity - not a true subject here):
On 06-Sep-02, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
SNIP
Bohm's QM is empirically
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fri. Sept. 6, 2002 6:17PM
Bill Jefferys says:
Nonsense. It's done all the time for events of low probability.
If *doing something all the time* is your reply to nonsense, then can I
assume that not doing something is your reply to *sense*?Ah well,
14 matches
Mail list logo
