It's self-evident that everyone has a present moment, which they will all
agree is now. It's also self-evident that they have a current position,
which everyone will tell you is here.
Hence everyone is at the same time, and in the same place.
--
You received this message because you are
On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But
the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the
Oops apologies to Jason - great minds etc!
I should have read to the end of the thread before I posted... but the
question stands, regardless.
On 29 December 2013 23:34, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
No, reality
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process.
That's the meaning.
I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a deterministic
process?
--
You received this message
On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are
machines,
Who wrote this?
*any* ideally correct machines is unable to recognize the fact that
they are machines.
Bruno
I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains
how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that
randomness is the lack of any
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider
interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a
low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of
state remains. It can be shown that at the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 25 Dec
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:10, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote
How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth
right now?
Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
I answered this two times already. The
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know
Jesse,
Sure the experiment that proves they are in the same present moment is they
just turn around and shake hands, they just turn around and compare clocks
to see whether they read the same or not. How difficult is that to
comprehend? It's what people do every day of their lives.
Edgar
On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.
?
That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.
Decoherence falsifies many worlds.
Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/
environment. It
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on
sequence of states, with the right probabilities, and for this you
need the complete run of the UD, because your next moment is
determioned by
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure
of all things.
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW. First of all you have to understand what
a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. It's a description of a
physical object in human math. Basically in QM its formulated as the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want
generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm
generating all
Liz,
Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random
choices. That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or
define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results
by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does
Jason,
You agree No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is
the only reality.
OK, that's immense progress we are making!
So, the present moment does exist, and we agree on that. So now the only
issue is that you presumably believe in block time, that all other moments
of
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was supposed to
be a scientific forum!
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Richard and Stephen,
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:40, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, when you wrote:
...arithmetic number's dreams = physics
OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one.
And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science...
for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem
On 28 Dec 2013, at 23:15, John Mikes wrote:
List:
Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for R A N D O M? (my non-
Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing
the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls
it exbeliebig = kind of: whatever I like)
My position as
Pierz,
A lot of meat in your post. Thanks! I'll answer most of your questions
Yes, observers observe they are in the same present moment by the
simultaneity of events. Exactly, but the important point is that is the
simultaneity of actual events, not of clock time readings. Observers can
On 29 Dec 2013, at 00:28, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this
new type of randomness (discovered by Bruno).
I don't think Bruno claims to have discovered the notion that there
can be first-person randomness even in a
On 29 Dec 2013, at 02:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the
computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense.
Computations are not physical. I agree. They are arithmetical notion.
But I can't understand
Dear Bruno,
I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote. Interleaving.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions
between
On 29 Dec 2013, at 11:37, LizR wrote:
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic
process. That's the meaning.
I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a
deterministic
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I use Platonism, where God == Truth.
So God is my dog just took a dump.
God is not that much a bad name.
It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and
wants to use language honestly. Never
On Dec 29, 2013, at 4:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic
process. That's the meaning.
I thought the digits of pi were random, but
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk
about
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You agree No one is denying the reality of the present, just that
it is the only reality.
OK, that's immense progress we are making!
So, the present moment does exist, and we agree on that. So now the
only
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist?
I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest
that the soul for lack of a better word. It is that each of us has
that feels and experiences, it
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
events more clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In
particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
spacetime background does NOT exist.
Now
Jason,
O, for God's sakes. No wonder you believe in block time, MW, the
nonexistence of the present moment and the tooth fairy!;-)
Just wait till I present my theory of consciousness!
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:04:31 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM,
I will put myself in a superposition and execute the
On 29 Dec 2013, at 15:19, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was
supposed to be a scientific forum!
I guess *you* take seriously some theory of soul, to be so sure that
it does not exist, or could not have any sense.
soul is often
On 29 Dec 2013, at 17:14, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I use Platonism, where God == Truth.
So God is my dog just took a dump.
Oh! I hope your dog is OK.
God is not that much a bad name.
It is a VERY bad name if someone
On 12/29/2013 2:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process.
That's the
meaning.
I thought the digits of pi were random, but
Bruno,
To answer your last question please refer to the new topic I just started
Another stab at how spacetime emergences computationally or something
like that. I forget exactly how I titled it...
Best,
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:36:05 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random
number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a
On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random choices.
That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or define, reality as
computational then reality is computing random results by definition. It's
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you are not here. However
it is quite clear that you absolutely must be doing something in the exact same present
moment that I write this sentence. That is the present moment that
On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I use Platonism, where God == Truth.
I know what truth means as an attribute of a sentence. But I don't know what Truth
means? The set of all
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote
Are faster-than-light influences involved?
No.
That means you think things are local.
2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or
dead?
The cat is always either dead or alive. It's
Hi Edgar,
I like Kevin Knuth's theory of emergent space time. It is far more simple
and does not need to get into quantum aspects other than a basic notion of
an observer. An observer is a simple entity whose state is changed as the
result of an observation/interaction: A nice video of one
On 30 December 2013 06:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In
particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
spacetime background does NOT exist.
How would this work? What is doing this computing,
Well OK, but that's *one* way in which randomness isn't quantum.
On 30 December 2013 07:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Cramer's transactional interpretation is non-local.
Not really. It's slower-than-light, but retro.
If you can reach the finish line of a race before you even hear the
starting gun I'd say you're pretty damn fast.
From
Not quite, violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by time
symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications).
On 30 December 2013 09:05, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote
Are
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.
There doesn't have to be any notion of physical space for computations to
take place within. The
I think I've read enough to be fairly sure that Mr Owen doesn't understand
the problem. Brent just stated it uneqivocally. There is no unique mapping
from one observer's present moments to another's, or to put it another way,
there are an infinite number of equally valid mappings. It took
On 12/29/2013 9:16 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more
clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the
usually imagined single pre-existing
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by time symmetry
(Huw Price and John Bell, private communications).
I have no idea what that private communication is, but I do know that time
is NOT symmetric.
John K Clark
On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I will put
John,
No. See the explanation in my new topic Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from computational reality and you will (hopefully) see why those
problems are avoided...
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:05:24 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:05 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote
Are faster-than-light influences involved?
No.
That means you think things are local.
2. When it is determined whether or not
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb
Dear Brent and Jason,
I think that this is an important idea: the relationship between
compression algorithms and numbers. It does not look like a simple
one-to-one and onto map!
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Brent and Jason,
I think that this is an important idea: the relationship between
compression algorithms and numbers. It does not look like a simple
one-to-one and onto map!
Stephen,
For any
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Richard,
It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and
physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to
be a genius though.
:-)
And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum to
try to clarify the presentation of my
Pierz,
If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then
the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe
of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy is not being
converted from one form to another but stored in each moment of
Might I respectfully suggest the following:
1) That when you have an obvious intuition or brilliant stroke of insight
that goes against a century or more of insight from the most distinguished
physicists and
2) That when you are unable to operationalize your intuition in such a way
that other
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb
In order for criticism to be effective, the one being criticized must be
willing to see his errors, something I think you have long ago given up.
I'm afraid there is no help for you, my friend.
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:11:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Richard,
It is true I
ALL HAIL TIME CUBE!! http://www.timecube.com/
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:35:10 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
In order for criticism to be effective, the one being criticized must be
willing to see his errors, something I think you have long ago given up.
I'm afraid there is no
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious
dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake!
Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories!
:-)
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM
On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Well Mr. Owen used the 101 crackpot dictionary... he knows the truth
(since so long) and we are the dumbest people on earth... but by a miracle
(that only he knows) he feel compelled to overwhelm us with his truth and
his
On 30 December 2013 12:03, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
PS: You can blame me for Roger as well.
You're a wicked, wicked man!
But fear not, you bring 'em on and the assembled brainpower around here
will shoot them down.
(Must.resist.schadenfreude.)
--
You received
On 30 December 2013 11:55, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so
much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume)
that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more.
Sigh. That was my first
On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious
dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake!
Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.
So an external time dimension
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,
Who wrote this?
*any* ideally correct machines is unable to recognize the fact that they
are
All,
All,
Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present
moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish
that we also share a common present moment when we are separated in space.
Only if we can prove that can we establish that the present
On 12/29/2013 4:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Well Mr. Owen used the 101 crackpot dictionary... he knows the truth (since
so long)
and we are the dumbest people on earth... but by a miracle (that only
Far from it, really;-) I assure you, I wish you no burning at any stakes,
whether literal or figurative. You are perfectly entitled to be as
incorrect as you wish, especially in an area as solidly established as
relativistic physics.
It's just that (a ma parte, at least), I feel a bit bad for
On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious
dogma to you
and someone who doesn't agree deserves
Once more unto the breach...
On 30 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their
watches and shake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both
the same actual present moment time, and the same
On 30 December 2013 14:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Well Mr. Owen used the 101 crackpot dictionary... he knows the truth
(since so long) and we are the dumbest people on
Hi Brent,
No conserved doesn't mean all the energy of every moment remains in that
moment which is somehow still real. What it means is that when it is
recomputed in every moment none of it is lost.
The only energy that exists exists in the present moment, and it is always
(in the same frame)
Brent,
I give a detailed answer to your question in my new topic on Another shot
of how spacetime emerges from computational reality.
Best,
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:36:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal
processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations
I don't intend to play DA or Defense just muse about the 'firmness' of a
temporary scientific belief (even supportable by tests using instruments
- or theories - based on the acceptability of those beliefs). There were
'centuries' with scientific belief of the Geocentric pattern - when
Copernicus
On 12/29/2013 5:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
All,
Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present moment when we
are together we need to take the next step and establish that we also share a common
present moment when we are separated in space. Only if we can
Dear Brent,
I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using
verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35,
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
All,
Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present
moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish
that we also share a common present moment when we are
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Brent,
I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using
verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?
In the same way we can say that y increases as x
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
