Quentin Anciaux writes:
1) assume an observer that can see.
2) assume that the observer can see only at a certain resolution/level
(it's
true that I can't see everything, I do not see quarks for example, nor my
cells)
Then, I can digitalize every image that I (assuming I'm an observer ;) can
Le 24-juin-05, à 15:54, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Lest anyone take Jonathan Colvin's thought experiment as evidence that
the copy isn't really you, here is a variation in which the
situation is reversed:
Stathis' the copy and the chair is here
Le 24-juin-05, à 20:40, Eugen Leitl a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 06:52:11PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why don't we terminate this pointless thread, until we can actually
make numerical
models of sufficiently complex animals and people, so the question
completely
renders itself
Hi Quentin,
Hi Bruno,
Le Vendredi 24 Juin 2005 15:25, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
Because if everything exists... every OM has a
successor (and I'd say it must always have more than one),
Perhaps. It depends of your definition of OM, and of your
everything theory.
Let me tell you the Lobian's
Le 24-juin-05, à 22:43, Pete Carlton a écrit :
(Sorry for the delay; I like to spend several hours writing here but I
have had meetings to attend etc..)
On Jun 22, 2005, at 4:19 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno wrote
There are two *physical* issues here.
1) The simplest one is that if you
5 matches
Mail list logo
