On 07 Feb 2009, at 19:05, Jack Mallah wrote:
Bruno is still pushing his crackpot UDA.
What is it that you (still) don't understand? (good idea to resume UDA
again, and so the question is asked also to the newbies).
Please help yourself by printing the PDF slide
1) The (re)definition
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
good idea to resume UDA again
Bruno, I will post on the subject - but not yet. I do not want to get
sidetracked from improving my paper.
I see you have make some progress on the subject (but not yet on
diplomacy, unless your
Hi Jack,
On 09 Feb 2009, at 18:19, Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
good idea to resume UDA again
Bruno, I will post on the subject - but not yet. I do not want to
get sidetracked from improving my paper.
I guess you understand that I do
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 10:05:14AM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
this list. That's why I'm
2009/2/8 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com:
Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on average each has 1/N of your
original measure. I guess that's why you think the measure decreases. But
the sum of the measures is N/N of the original.
This is trivially obvious so I saw no reason
Hello Jack,
I could tell you what's wrong with his MGA, but I'm here to deal with the QS
paper first.
I appreciate your prioritizing your paper, but I would be interested in
what you find wrong with the MGA.
By the way, as I mentioned in a previous mail to John, my departure from
So far the responses here have not been as hostile as I feared :)
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
are you open to the idea
that there might be truths about subjectivity (such as
truths about what philosophers call 'qualia') which
cannot be reduced to purely
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on this
list. That's why I'm here now - to see if there are any clarifications I
should make in
It seems to me that discussions of quantum immortality often founder on the
fact that people don't make their assumptions about philosophy of mind
explicit, or don't have a well-thought-out position on metaphysical issues
relating to mind in the first place. For example, Jaques, are you
Hi,
2009/2/7 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
this list. That's why I'm here now - to
10 matches
Mail list logo
