Brent Meeker wrote:
> A transition from one conscious point
> > (observer moment) to the next must be logical at the conscious level
> > and simultaneously at the physical law level.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by logical transition - "entailed by the
> previous theorems plus rules of infer
No fair using time in your definition of time.
Brent Meeker
On 04-Mar-01, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> Since conventional physics is sufficient to give (at least in
> principle) a complete description of the human brain, a partial
> ordering on the set of all possible observer moments S can be defi
On 03-Mar-01, James Higgo wrote:
> Your comment, 'an explanation that can explain anything explains
> nothing.' is very imporatnt, and many people have said it. It is true
> of any TOE, as you say, and implies that _you_ should stop looking for
> a TOE as you will always be dissatisfied.
I would
I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What
is it that 'transits' ?
- Original Message -
From: George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
>
>
> Br
Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 03-Mar-01, George Levy wrote:
>
> > I do not view these so called "parallel" universes as *separate*. It's
> > really one single multiverse and the wave function exists in the
> > multiverse
>
> How can this multiverse have a single wave function when it is supposed
Saibal writes:
> Since conventional physics is sufficient to give (at least in
> principle) a complete description of the human brain, a partial
> ordering on the set of all possible observer moments S can be defined as
> follows:
>
> First we choose an arbitrary brain B.
> If x1 and x2 are
this is what's called cosmic irony, isn't it?
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Michael Rosefield ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 4:16
PM
Subject: Re: excuse the triple (!)
posting
Maybe Jürgen can explain why the particular
bits
Since conventional physics is sufficient
to give (at least in principle) a complete description of the human
brain, a partial ordering on the set of all possible observer moments S can be
defined as follows:
First we choose an arbitrary brain B.
If x1 and x2 are elements
Maybe Jürgen can explain why the particular
bitstring defining your previous post has such a large probability?
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: Michael Rosefield ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:33
AM
Subject: e
Maybe Jürgen can explain why the particular
bitstring defining your previous post has such a large probability?
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: Michael Rosefield ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:33
AM
Subject: e
Maybe Jürgen can explain why the particular
bitstring defining your previous post has such a large probability?
- Original Message -
From:
Michael Rosefield
To: Michael Rosefield ; Saibal Mitra ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:33
AM
Subject: e
Your comment, 'an explanation that can explain anything explains nothing.'
is very imporatnt, and many people have said it. It is true of any TOE, as
you say, and implies that _you_ should stop looking for a TOE as you will
always be dissatisfied.
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker <
12 matches
Mail list logo
