Charles wrote:
[Stephen]
The perpetual question I have (about the epiphenomena problem that
any form of Idealism has), regarding this notion of a Platonic
Reality, is that IF all possible Forms of existence *exist* a
priori - from the beginning - what necessitates any form of 1st
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Could I oppose the idea that consiousness is not Turing Emulable
without being a biological chauvinist? ;-)The main problem I have is
that these two assumptions are mutually exclusive!
1) Observer-moments exist: This requires that observer-moments have an
Hello,
Note that Juergen Schmidhuber is talking at this event, it might be
of interest to a few people on the list. There will be a stream, so
you can watch it from a distance.
Best,
Tim
Announcement:: Data Ecologies 05
To whom it may concern,
could you please forward this announcement to
Dear Stathis,
It is exactly this seeming requirement that we accept COMP by faith and
demand no possibility of empirical falsification that troubles me the most.
For me, a theory must make predictions that might be confirmed to be
incorrect otherwise all one has, at best, is the internal
Dear Brian,
Don't we first have to establish that strings of ones and zeros can
encode all of the basic structure that we would agree are necessary for
consciousness? I still do not understand how one bitstring can encode
necessity of the illusion of making a choice between eating Apples or
Dear Jesse,
I must apologize for my post last night, I had drunk a little too much
beer. ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status
Hi Stephen:
At 04:37 PM 5/6/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
No, I disagree. The mere a priori existence of bit strings is not
enough to imply necessity that what we experience 1st person view points.
At best it allows the possibility that the bit strings could be
implemented. You see the problem
- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 22:40:46 +1000 snip I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the relationship between observer moments. It is
Time is just a coordinate, in relativity theory. The time coordinate
has an opposite sign to the space coordinates, and that subtle difference
is responsible for all of the enormous apparent difference between space
and time.
Granted, relativity theory is not a complete and accurate
Dear Hal,
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time
Time is just a coordinate, in relativity theory. The time coordinate
has an opposite sign to the
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Hal,
[HF]
Granted, relativity theory is not a complete and accurate specification
of the world in which we live (that requires QM to be incorporated),
but it is still a self-consistent model which illustrates how time can
be dealt with mathematically in a uniform way
Stephen Paul King writes:
I would agree that Time is just a coordinate (system), or as Leibniz
claimed an order of succession, if we are considering only events in
space-time that we can specify, e.g. take as a posteriori. What I am trying
to argue is that we can not do this in the a
Dear Jesse,
I thought that you knew that there are serious problems with all known
forms of QFT!
See, for example:
http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday,
Stephen Paul King:
Dear Jesse,
I thought that you knew that there are serious problems with all known
forms of QFT!
See, for example:
http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/
Yes, I've heard there are some conceptual problems with them, questions
about whether the renormalization is
I think he is drawing an unwarranted conclusion. The fact that a physical
clock must have finite extent doesn't mean it can't work. Diffeomorphism
invariance is a requirement we impose on our theories to reflect the fact that
choice of coordinates is a matter of description, not physics. To
15 matches
Mail list logo
