On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:21:50PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> Russell Standish writes:
> > It predicts that either a) there is no conscious life in a GoL
> > universe (thus contradicting computationalism) or b) the physics as
> > seen by conscious GoL observers will be quantum mechanical in natur
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:18:01AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi Russel,
>
> Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 22:11, Russell Standish a ??crit??:
>
> >
> > Even then, there is still a loophole. I suspect that 3D environment
> > are far more likely to evolve the complex structures needed for
> > con
Hi Tom:
One of the goals of my search for a model was to explain why there is
an observed dynamic. The Somethings that are launched from my
Nothing/All pair include evolving Somethings [due to their
incompleteness]. This evolution causes states of universes resident
in the All to be given a
Russell Standish writes:
> It predicts that either a) there is no conscious life in a GoL
> universe (thus contradicting computationalism) or b) the physics as
> seen by conscious GoL observers will be quantum mechanical in nature.
>
> If one could establish that a given GoL structure is conscious,
Hi Russel,
Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 22:11, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> Even then, there is still a loophole. I suspect that 3D environment
> are far more likely to evolve the complex structures needed for
> consciousness, so that conscious GoL observers are indeed a rare
> thing. I don't know
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:27PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> Russell Standish writes:
> > Lack of convincing is perhaps due to lack of understanding. Even I do
> > not fully understand the true worth of my "derivation". It seems to me
> > that I show that any physical theory that takes into acco
Russell Standish writes:
> Lack of convincing is perhaps due to lack of understanding. Even I do
> not fully understand the true worth of my "derivation". It seems to me
> that I show that any physical theory that takes into account
> observation must have that Hilbert space structure, with that fo
Bruno Marchal writes:
> And that illustrates the advantage of the comp theory, it gives by
> construction the correct physics, without any need, for a comp
> "believer" to verify it. Except, of course, that comp need to be
> postulated and we must be open it is could be false. With comp, you
>
There was more to my post, which I've included below, which was meant
to answer questions from multiple contributors here.
Thanks, Hal Ruhl, for responding. Somethings coming from All AND
Nothing seems just as mysterious as coming from one of them. And if the
somethings which are generated ar
Thanks Russell, for the testimony for our not being
omniscient.
I concur with Hal in his assumption that recent-day
physics is "close-to-right" - because it is within the
model-view of what we identified (over centuries) as
the "physical view of the world" strictly within our
actual (and continual
Note: forwarded message attached.
--- Begin Message ---
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit
> :
>
> > I should make another point, that it seems very
> likely that the worm
> > has no way of developing the in-apple technology
>
Le 03-nov.-05, à 12:12, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
Le Jeudi 3 Novembre 2005 11:14, vous avez écrit :
Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:23, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
I could'nt imagine what would it be for a human to knows the why and
being
able to prove it...
Then you should like comp (and its
ERRATA: in the last paragraph to the post I send to Georges, instead of
Another justification on the "bigness" of the 1-plenitude is that a
first person cannot even give name (description) of itself: the real
"I" is already undefinable. Its extension set cannot be extremely
complex and b
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:03:21PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote:
>
> I don't think most of our versions of multiverse theories depend on the
> assumption that present-day physics is close to being right. It's true
> that we have some efforts such as those of Russell Standish to derive QM
> from a mu
Hi Georges,
Le 03-nov.-05, à 04:23, George Levy a écrit :
From the thread Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet
Theory of Everything
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit :
The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed
by the
Le 03-nov.-05, à 06:03, Hal Finney a écrit :
In short, if there really exists a simple mathematical explanation
of our universe, which IMO is a prediction of multiverse theories, I
don't see our present physical models as being very close to that goal.
That doesn't mean that multiverse theories
Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I should make another point, that it seems very likely that the worm
has no way of developing the in-apple technology to find out about
quantum mechanics or DNA. This emphasizes the fact that we, with our
quantum theories, M-theories, and l
Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:23, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
I could'nt imagine what would it be for a human to knows the why and
being
able to prove it...
Then you should like comp (and its generalisation) because it explain
the why, and it justifies completely wxhy we cannot and will never been
abl
18 matches
Mail list logo
