Dear Tim, I am sorry that you did not read my 1st par:
Dear Tim,
this writing is not about YOU, only addressed to your post. It is about the
topic of it. I have no argument with you, maybe you will have with me.
And you have.
You precisely formulated what I marginally 'shorthanded' writing this
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:50 AM, John M wrote:
Dear Tim, I am sorry that you did not read my 1st par:
Dear Tim,
this writing is not about YOU, only addressed to your post. It is
about the
topic of it. I have no argument with you, maybe you will have with me.
I read and absorbed
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
--Tim May
One frustrating thing is that it seems almost arbitrary *which* unproven
extraordinary claims are celebrated with attention and funding.
The amount of attention paid to string theory perplexes me, for example.
Yes, it's interesting.
Your expression complexity-thinking reminded me that I first came
across you in a different forum, namely NECSI's complex-science
list. Indeed the various terms you quote after that would be more
appropriate for that list than the everything list. The everything
list was not intended for
In the interests of doing wild speculation here, which some folks are
asking for more of, here's a followup to a discussion we had a few
weeks ago:
The Fermi Paradox asks the question: If extraterrestrial civilizations
are at all common, even at the level of a few dozen per galaxy per
galaxy
The key assumption here is whether advanced technological civilisation
(such as ourselves) is easy or difficult on the timescale of the age
of the universe (10^10 years).
Assuming that this is difficult (contra to your comments below),
solves the standard Fermi paradox (namely other advanced
Michael Clive Price wrote and widely distributed his Many-Worlds FAQ
back in the 90s, and he has a couple of questions that touch on this
topic:
http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#linear
Is physics linear?
Could we ever communicate with the other worlds?
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 05:38 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
The key assumption here is whether advanced technological civilisation
(such as ourselves) is easy or difficult on the timescale of the age
of the universe (10^10 years).
Assuming that this is difficult (contra to your comments
Tim May wrote:
I made no assumptions of nondifficulty (to use your phrasing).
This is in fact why I picked the Thogians a few hundred million
light-years from us. Now perhaps you think advanced civilizations are
even rarer than in this example, there have not yet been any
civilizations
Regarding the question of scientific paradigms, the cyclic-universe paper
I mentioned a few days ago made an interesting point. The paper may be
found at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204479.
The main author, Paul Steinhardt, is a successful physicist who has done
a great deal of original work
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
(I'll limit myself to only commenting on the last, and most interesting, point.)
This is where I lose your argument. I can't see why an MWI
communication capable civilisation should be able to spread throughout
our universe any
Tim May wrote:
Imagine what will happen if strong MWI communication happens in our
universe, our branch:
-- presumably access to all of the manifold knowledge from every
universe which has done science, engineering, etc.
-- vast amounts of technology (as some universes are ahead
12 matches
Mail list logo
