Ben Goertzel wrote:
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
Dear Russell, your lines are enlightening to me.
Some of them I find hard to accept, but you talk authoritatively so I give
them my consideration.
Our acquaintance goes further than on the NECSI list, you commented
privately on my SciRel writing (missing the point, quite opposite to Tim,
who saw
Tim, Hal, Russell
Since we have several futures ( and several pasts), time travel is just a
particular case of many-world travel.
Here is a (white) hared brained idea on how to build a time machine. You
need a very good recording device and a Quantum Suicide (QS) machine.
1) You allow the
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 10:47 AM, George Levy wrote:
Tim, Hal, Russell
Since we have several futures ( and several pasts), time travel is
just a particular case of many-world travel.
I somewhat agree...and we are not the first to make this point.
However, we need to be careful
Tim May wrote
If you mean that
"many presents" have "many pasts," yes. But the current present only has
a limited number of pasts, possibly just one. (The origin of this asymmetry
in the lattice of events is related to our being in one present.)
I mean one (many?) present has many
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 12:38 PM, George Levy wrote:
Tim May wrote
If you mean that many presents have many pasts, yes. But the
current present only has a limited number of pasts, possibly just one.
(The origin of this asymmetry in the lattice of events is related to
our being in
[George Levy]
Here is a (white) hared brained idea
on how to build a time machine.
You need a very good recording device
and a Quantum Suicide (QS) machine.
For a simpler device see:http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/chan-evid.html
[Tim May]
I am quite strongly persuaded that "many pasts for a
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:54:38PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
But in this, the only universe I will ever, ever have contact with, I
optimize as best I can. And I assume all the myriad mes are doing the
same in their universes, forever disconnected from mine.
You're taking the question too
Tim May wrote:
On your point about many pasts are fundamentally caused by quantum
uncertainty in memory devices, I strongly disagree. There is only one past
for one present, whether RAMs dropped bits in recording them or historians
forgot something, etc.
(This is captured by the formalism of
John M wrote:
As to this list: - so far I missed the Ensemble theories of... before
the everything, definitely did not associate it with TOE, which I always
looked at with awe, because to draw a TOE we should know everything first.
Looking at the progressing epistemic development of our
Continuing with my last post...
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:54:38PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
Why would there be any reason to try to maximize the utility of this
big picture?
For those of us who don't even strive for the greatest good for the
greatest number in a single-branch universe, why
11 matches
Mail list logo
