On 03 Mar 2011, at 19:44, Pzomby wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Mar 2011, at 02:54, Pzomby wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:03 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Mar 2011, at 05:48, Pzomby wrote:
That is why I limit myself for the TOE to natural
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for answers. As usual, they are very enjoyable.
From my side I can offer nothing more. I guess that at the moment my
point of view is some eclectic mixture, basically I am just collecting
different ideas and theories.
I should say that some long time ago I used to have
http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0005v1.pdf.
Bruno may be interested in this one.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
I suspect we all may.
Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ... it
is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most fundamental
aspect of physics.
Given that conciousness seems all too
On Mar 4, 8:02 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Somehow. The fundamentality arrow is roughly like this: NUMBERS =
UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS = PHYSICAL LAWS = BIOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
On the other hand:
PHYSICS=COMPUTATION=CONSCIOUSNESS=NUMBERS
Shows how computationalism is
On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect we all may.
Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ... it
is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most
On 04 Mar 2011, at 15:24, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:02 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Somehow. The fundamentality arrow is roughly like this: NUMBERS =
UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS = PHYSICAL LAWS = BIOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
On the other hand:
On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect we all may.
Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be,
... it
is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
consciousness [which] could
On 04 Mar 2011, at 15:13, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:57 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Mar 2011, at 18:39, 1Z wrote:
If you have a UDA inside a physical universe,
I guess you mean a UD inside a physical universe.
UDA is for the UD-Argument. The Universal Dovetailer
On 3/4/2011 6:13 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:57 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Mar 2011, at 18:39, 1Z wrote:
If you have a UDA inside a physical universe,
I guess you mean a UD inside a physical universe.
UDA is for the UD-Argument. The
On 3/4/2011 6:20 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote:
I suspect we all may.
Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ...
it is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most fundamental
aspect of physics.
Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can
shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you
mean by account for collapse. At least one interpretation of QM,
advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the collapse
is purely
I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the
idea that everything is simpler than something.
If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly
symmetrical emergent property of the Everything, and you can't get much
simpler than that.
--
You
Hi Evgenii,
On 04 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for answers. As usual, they are very enjoyable.
From my side I can offer nothing more. I guess that at the moment my
point of view is some eclectic mixture, basically I am just
collecting different ideas and
On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
Collapse appears to instruments as well as people
We don't have any evidence for that, indeed, if we take either the
concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM seriously, this is not the
case.
- that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree
Although the moments, as defined by Everett's formulation, must have
overlapping definitions,
The new metaphor perfectly reflects one aspect of the situation. The
experiential state, meaning the contents of the sensorium, is in all
likelihood updated in exactly such a way. At the same time,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:48:38AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So I will be franc. The problem of interaction is not solved at all,
even between third person describable objects. And the problem of
how many first person really exist is also an open problem,
although I tend more and more to
17 matches
Mail list logo
