On 14 Oct 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25,
On 14 Oct 2013, at 22:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 3:17:06 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Oct 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:03:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All object are conscious?
No objects are conscious.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not
identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain)
is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In
everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional.
Richard: Wow. This contradicts everything I have ever though Bruno was
claiming.
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized
brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In
everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional.
Richard: Wow. This contradicts
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary:
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/15
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Alright, but this again leaves us at a crossroad:
1) You believe that teleportation is fundamentally impossible
No.
2) You believe that teleportation is possible
Yes.
in which case you accept the thought
On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized
brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is
not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare
and exceptional.
Richard: Wow. This
2013/10/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Alright, but this again leaves us at a crossroad:
1) You believe that teleportation is fundamentally impossible
No.
2) You believe that teleportation is possible
On 15 Oct 2013, at 13:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
To:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will assess that
they were unable to predict the result of opening the door
Bruno I really didn't need your help on that, I already knew that I can't
always
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Are you saying that John Clark after going through a (duplicating
teleporter cannot use anymore the indexical 'I' when talking about himself
No.
me myself and I John K Clark
--
You received this message because
On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will
assess that they were unable to predict the result of opening the door
Bruno I really didn't need your help
Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth
(by Gödel).
Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible
arithmetical truth can produce the physical.
Since you read my paper you know that I think computations in this universe
if holographic
On 10/15/2013 3:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain)
is
computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything,
or just
in
On 10/15/2013 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is
computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in
arithmetic, the computable is rare
I once have heard that Karl Pribram has a theory of a holographic brain
and decided to read his latest book
Karl H Pribram, The Form Within: My Point of View.
Unfortunately I was unable to understand his theory, as for me the book
was too eclectic. One quote that I like is below, but I have
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth
(by Gödel).
Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible
arithmetical truth can produce the physical.
Since you read my
On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Oct
On 10/15/2013 12:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
8. an organism which emerges spontaneously from Boltzmann conditions in the environment
rather than seeded inheritance
Like the first RNA replicators on Earth.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 16 October 2013 01:26, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
Thanks for your answer. That was not quite what I was asking though.
Let's say the nano-tech did not extend some living organism, but were some
entirely
On 16 October 2013 08:59, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
7. an organism which reproduces by transforming its environment rather
than reproducing by cell division
Bruno said cigarettes might qualify as such life forms.
Viruses, surely?
--
You received this message because you
On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 08:59, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
7. an organism which reproduces by transforming its environment
rather than reproducing by cell division
Bruno said cigarettes might qualify as such life forms.
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:59:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On
On 16 October 2013 13:30, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
All that we know for sure is that there does not seem to be a single
example of an inorganic species now, nor does there seem to be a single
example from the fossil record. It doesn't mean that conscious machines
cannot
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:50:53 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 16 October 2013 01:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
Thanks for your answer. That was not quite what I was asking though.
Let's say
On 16 October 2013 13:48, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's begging the question. A human body may be a machine, but that
does not mean that a human experience can be created from the outside in.
That's what all of these points are about - a machine does not build itself
Sorry I should have added... your statement A human body may be a machine
contradicts a machine does not build itself from a single reproducing
cell. A machine does not care what it is doing, it doesn't get bored or
tired - unless a human being is not the same thing as a human body, of
course. Is
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:45:38 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Oct 2013, at 22:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 3:17:06 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Oct 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:03:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:51:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 16 October 2013 13:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
No, that's begging the question. A human body may be a machine, but that
does not mean that a human experience can be created from the outside in.
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:52:48 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
Sorry I should have added... your statement A human body may be a
machine contradicts a machine does not build itself from a single
reproducing cell. A machine does not care what it is doing, it doesn't get
bored or tired -
On 16 October 2013 14:05, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:51:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 16 October 2013 13:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's begging the question. A human body may be a machine, but that
does not mean that
On 16 October 2013 14:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:52:48 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
Sorry I should have added... your statement A human body may be a
machine contradicts a machine does not build itself from a single
reproducing cell. A machine
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:59:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14,
(And others who ignore the importance of first person views when it comes
to duplication.)
I invite you to read what Hugh Everett had to say on the matter:
I believe that my theory is by far the simplest way out of the dilemma,
since it results from what is inherently a simplification of the
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and Bohr,
since the complete theory is quite objective and deterministic...and yet on
the subjective level...it is probabilistic in the *strong sense* that
there
On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and
Bohr, since the complete theory is quite objective and
deterministic...and yet on the
On 16 October 2013 16:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and
Bohr, since the complete
On Oct 15, 2013, at 11:09 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 16:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Our theory in a certain sense bridges
41 matches
Mail list logo
