On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I pretty much agree with you Jason. The materialist simply posits that the
conciousness of a person (or conscious being) represents a static track
through the 4d block universe, misperceived as changing due to something
about the
On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:21 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hi Rog
A taste for fat 'helped us survive' back in the day. Doesnt mean it
will be much use now. Infact now it just causes obesity and
revulsion in the people you should be trying to attract.
I believe the
When there are two polarizers A and C, which are rotated by 90 degrees to
each other then no photons will pass through both polarizers. However, if
we insert polarizer B at a 45 degree offset to A and C then 1/4 of the
photons will make it through.
Now let's say we have two entangled photons
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/23/2013 7:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
When there are two polarizers A and C, which are rotated by 90 degrees
to each other then no photons will pass through both polarizers. However,
if we insert polarizer B at a 45
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/23/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/23/2013 7:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
When there are two polarizers A and C, which are rotated by 90
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think this misunderstands Jason's thought experiment. I think he's
assuming the source is polarized at 0deg, the same as A, not a random
source
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:57 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If a photon passes a filter orientated at 0 degrees, then it encounters
a filter at 90 degrees it will be blocked.
How do you know the photon is oriented at
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 5:06:31 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2013, at 03:17, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 5 October 2013 00:40, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The argument is simply
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:10:25 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 5:06:31 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06
This thread reminds me of the following cartoon from:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/only-humans-cartoon.jpg
Jason
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Why does the relation of aesthetic experience to computation have to be
reduced to a simple question
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2013 09:47, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not that computers can't do what humans do, it's that they can't
experience anything. Mozart could dig a hole as well as compose music, but
that doesn't
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
infinity as those between 0.1 and 1.
It is
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:08:01 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Wed,
On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Oct
On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 08:59, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
7. an organism which reproduces by transforming its environment
rather than reproducing by cell division
Bruno said cigarettes might qualify as such life forms
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:59:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14,
(And others who ignore the importance of first person views when it comes
to duplication.)
I invite you to read what Hugh Everett had to say on the matter:
I believe that my theory is by far the simplest way out of the dilemma,
since it results from what is inherently a simplification of the
On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and
Bohr, since the complete theory is quite objective and
deterministic...and yet
On Oct 15, 2013, at 11:09 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges
Subject: Re: For John Clark
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:15:51 +0200
On 16 Oct 2013, at 05:10, LizR wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and
Bohr, since the complete theory is quite objective
say they were
non-denumerable, so I'm glad I opened it.
John K Clark
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
(And others who ignore the importance of first person views when it comes
to duplication.)
I invite you to read what Hugh Everett had to say
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
It was from the book The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III, a book I
obtained and read in a large part based on you glowing review. :-)
Did
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
From the paper:
What of the crucial question: should Alice1
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the present problem under
special relativity: If we exist in many times across space time, why do we
find ourselves
. As i said, Im not sure what to make of any of it.
Okay, that is fair.
Jason
regards.
--
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:04:58 +1300
Subject: Re: For John Clark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the present problem under
special relativity: If we exist in many times
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 5:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even
say in truth there is only one I
In your theory a person is a chain of experiences, so different chain
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the
physical - at least not unless he can solve the basis problem.
Could you do me a favor and explain what
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb meeke
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories are not a necessary requirement for experience and thus are not
a requirement for subjective continuation and survival. You survive
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 09:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 10:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 10:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
branching, etc. Any state eventually leads to every other state.
Sounds like wishful thinking.
I will accept that when you can point to a computational state
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Across the many worlds you will find a nearly continuous spectrum of
persons from those just like you to those like someone else, and
everything
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:42PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the first person views/memories are not integrated, they are not
experienced by the Jupiter brain, only instantiated, and it learns nothing
of what it is like
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the first person views/memories are not integrated
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/21/2013 12:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke
Russell,
Out of curiosity, is that link density of ~62% derived from 1 - (e^-1) ?
The concept seems related, as it is also the proportion of hash values that
can be reached by hashing all possible hash values (for a good hash
function with a uniform distribution).
Jason
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 1:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't choose to simulate
anything.
The mind has the tools available to generate any experience it wants,
somewhat like a lucid
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 1:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't choose
John,
I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf
In particular section 3 goes to great pains to describe the importance of
the first person / third person distinction. From the paper:
A. “It doesn’t explain why we perceive
other basis.
If you do not find this answer satisfying, I would be interested to know
why. Thanks.
Jason
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf
John,
Do you have any comment on the article I posted?
Jason
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently,
it's a
John,
Sorry, I missed your reply. Some comment's in-line below:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
http://arxiv.org
I came across this
surveyhttp://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhDareas0=0areas_max=1grain=coarseof
various professional philosophers. It is interesting that two
mutually
contradictory opinions are the leading positions among philosophers
(according to Bruno's
Frank Tipler published a paper which aims to show he can predict the rate
of convergence toward Born probabilities using the Bayesian probability
density and the assumption of many worlds:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4422.pdf
He says: As one watches the distribution (1) build
up, one is really
Chris,
Perhaps it is simpler to think about first person indeterminacy like this
(it requires some familiaraity with programming, but I will try to
elaborate those details):
Imagine there is a conscious AI inside a virtual environment (an open field)
Inside that virtual environment is a ball,
To add to this point, the main property of spindle cells (being very long
and thereby able to connect disjoint regions) might simply be necessary in
larger brains (not necessarily more intelligent brains), but since there is
a correlation between large brains and more intelligent brains, and so we
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/29/2013 8:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Chris,
Perhaps it is simpler to think about first person indeterminacy like
this (it requires some familiaraity with programming, but I will try to
elaborate those details
copy is the original? How can you distinguish an
original from a copy?
Jason
On 30 October 2013 09:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/29/2013 8:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Chris,
Perhaps
copied, other parts erased, and so on. Comp says none of this matters
- that its experiences are at a fundamental level exactly like ours.
So. What's wrong with this picture, if anything?
On 30 October 2013 09:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM
On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:31 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 October 2013 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
My point was only that the traditional notions of personal identity:
saying this person is that one particular continuation of that
biological organism
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2013 10:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and that personal survival from moment to moment is exactly the same as
survival during a duplication experiment. In
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2013 12:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course if there are 7 billion people it's more likely there will be
survivors than if there are only few million. But an asteroid strike could
easily be big
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably,
but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you
conscious as
John,
I reformulated the UDA in a way that does not use any pronouns at all, and
it doesn't matter if you consider the question from one view or from all
the views, the conclusion is the same. Perhaps you wouldn't mind
commenting on whether or not you agree with my conclusion. I will re-post
it
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
A) The test described where the simulation process forks 8 times and 256
copies are created and they each see a different pattern of the ball
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
So, has step 3 gone from that's absurd to everyone knows that ?!
Yes that is the situation right now, but with backpedaling and additional
caveats and
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote:
Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have.
Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992)? I do not
have this book but will add
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote:
Normally this is explained in Albert's book
John,
You seemed convinced that observers within duplicated but divergent
simulations cannot distinguish their observations from a single course that
evolves randomly. Why not proceed to the next step?
Jason
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:22 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote:
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Nov 2013, at 00:51, LizR wrote:
I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds to be
subsystems of the maths - he doesn't say anything about computations
existing in arithmetic. So I think he
I read it.
On 9 November 2013 10:16, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Nov 2013, at 00:51, LizR wrote:
I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds to
be subsystems of the maths
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if
not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This
!
Best,
Telmo.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
All,
I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining
something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given
subject. I thought I would share
do you suggest I make it more clear what is responsible for classical
appearances?
Thanks,
Jason
Brent
On 11/10/2013 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
All,
I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining
something in simple terms can help improve one's
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for uploading it, great job!
Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM:
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg
Beams exist only within the experience of the various
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Benjamin Button lived his life in reverse.
So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Quentin, what's you inference from
the fact you, and every body you've ever heard of died before reaching age
150?
That observation is
Also, I found this related thread on QTI, archived by James Higgo, which
took place on this list many years ago:
http://higgo.com/qti/rplaga.htm
Jason
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/12/2013 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Both with Comp and with Everett-QM we have lost that unique theoretical
evidence, because our best current explanation (comp, or QM) makes that
mind-brain identity non
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
Experience may be like that; everything has 'experience', it's just not
human experience and when you stop having human experience
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
less than 150 years.
There is no quantum immortality
I guess that settles it.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies of you will grow old and die in
less than 150 years.
There is no quantum immortality
A pretty bold statement. I
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/12/2013 4:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/12/2013 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2013, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
Experience
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/12/2013 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 November 2013 11:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Every one of the perhaps inifinite copies
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/12/2013 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
There is a continuation from being anesthetized to waking up from
anesthesia.
Did you leave out a no?
It was intentional, I meant there is a continuation, as in subjectively
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Simple. Shooting yourself with a gun or whatever means you use to end your
life in one universe does not guarranttee that you do not grow in all other
universes. Unless the laws of physics differ across the multiverse,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/14/2013 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Telmo, Bruno,
I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you.
To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate.
Jason
If I use it (and I
On Nov 16, 2013, at 8:56 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Quantum mechanics is only an approximate description of the
Mathematical Multiverse. The only things that are real are the
elements of that Multiverse, which are algorithms (some of them
describe people in some computational state).
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it was a
joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an explanation, I
assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant comparison
but I
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo wrote:
*I admire the US constitution too
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo wrote:
*I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
**peaceful
world
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/15/google_thinking_machines/
Jason
--
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
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:55, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:40 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb meeke
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
801 - 900 of 2377 matches
Mail list logo
