Re: Answers to David 4

On 27 May 2017 at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/05/2017 6:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 May 2017, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 26/05/2017 9:11 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 25 May 2017 23:18, "Brent Meeker" < >

Re: Answers to David 4

On 27 May 2017 3:30 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 27/05/2017 11:46 am, David Nyman wrote: On 27 May 2017 at 01:44, Bruce Kellett < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > I think it is the interpretation of the data that is

Re: Answers to David 4

On 27 May 2017 at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 26/05/2017 6:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 May 2017, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 26/05/2017 9:11 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 25 May 2017 23:18, "Brent Meeker" < >

Peepee

Due to the impenetrable tangle of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes ​of quotes ​ that is epidemic on ​ ​ this list there is no way to tell who but ​ ​ somebody wrote: *​"​The point is to recognise that at a certain stage it is no longer > scientific to ignore what is incapable of further

Re: Peepee

On 27 May 2017 at 16:02, John Clark wrote: > Due to the impenetrable tangle of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes > ​of quotes ​ > that is epidemic on > ​ ​ > this list there is no way to tell who but > ​ ​ > somebody wrote: > > *​"​The point is to recognise that at a

Fwd: Answers to David 4

-- Forwarded message -- From: David Nyman Date: 27 May 2017 at 23:12 Subject: Re: Answers to David 4 To: meekerdb ​Brent, why are y ou still PM'ing me ​?​ ​Please let me know if you have read this. On 27 May 2017 21:36, "Brent

Re: Peepee

On 27 May 2017 at 21:20, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when >> progress seems to be blocked >> > > ​Those ​ > alternative modes of explanation

Re: Peepee

On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote: ​> >> ​>​ >> ​ >> Data feels something? >> > > ​ > ​> ​ > Yes.​ > > > >> ​ >> ​> >> ​>>​ >> ​ >> Data feels something in a way?​ >> > > ​ > ​> ​ > Yes.​ > > > Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive assertion. > ​I'm glad

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought > about > > how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space > and >

Re: Peepee

On 28 May 2017 12:36 a.m., "John Clark" wrote: On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​​> > >> What is >> ​actually ​ >> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is >> being processed >> ​. >> > > ​> ​ > Data

Re: Peepee

On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote: > ​> ​ > it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when > progress seems to be blocked > ​Those ​ alternative modes of explanation ​ are not only ​ unscientific ​ there are a complete waste of time because there

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is that two > observers in different reference frames can have different presents. Two > humans walking past each other on the sidewalk may have presents that > include

Fwd: Answers to David 4

-- Forwarded message -- From: David Nyman Date: 27 May 2017 at 22:43 Subject: Re: Answers to David 4 To: meekerdb On 27 May 2017 9:19 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/27/2017 5:36 AM, David Nyman wrote: >

Re: Peepee

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​​> > >> What is >> ​actually ​ >> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is >> being processed >> ​. >> > > ​> ​ > Data feels something? > ​Yes.​ > ​ > ​> ​ > Data feels something in a way?​

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about > how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space and > vice versa, and therefore how from a different perspective we can think of > the