I plan to buy his book, but I always have my meta goal of making life better or
less despairing for people. If the book, even, unintentionally, contributes to
this, its all good, if its just number mumbling, I will always appreciate the
creativity of the abstract mind/brain at work. Enviously,
On 07 Jan 2014, at 22:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/7/2014 1:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric
(well, CPT-symmetric, but the implications are the same for Bell's
inequality and
Hi John,
On 07 Jan 2014, at 23:20, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, you made my day.
Reminds me of a Hungarian humorous author (P. Howard) who wrote
about a blind philosopher (The Sleepy Elephant) and his assistant
living in the deep Sahara - showing the Elephant's Life Oeuvre in a
BIG book,
That is not physicalism IMHO that is mathemathicalism
2014/1/8 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Maximus writes:
The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as the planet Neptune and
the radio wave: with mathematics. Why does our universe seem so
mathematical, and what does it mean?
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Bell derived his inequality assuming QM with collapse
No he did not, Bell makes no such assumption or interpretation, in fact
not one word about Quantum Mechanics is needed in his entire derivation.
None zero zilch
On 08 Jan 2014, at 16:22, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I plan to buy his book, but I always have my meta goal of making
life better or less despairing for people. If the book, even,
unintentionally, contributes to this, its all good, if its just
number mumbling, I will always appreciate the
Hi John!
(I suppose a 'freer mind than several nat.-scientist listers)
Thanks! I'm not sure my mind is so free, but that's a goal I value at least.
allow me some
musings (not that I want to hide them from the rest of the List).
Thinking of Bruno's integer-restricted arithmetics with
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:21, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not
In case you haven't seen it...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
Seems like an attempt to recover materialism, which strikes me as
somewhat unexpected from Tegmark. Am I missing something?
Cheers,
Telmo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand your point, are you arguing that time is asymmetric
or that it is not? The existence of neutral kaon decay strengthens the
already very strong argument that time is asymmetric, but only very
slightly. Yes a movie
On 08 Jan 2014, at 18:33, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That is not physicalism IMHO that is mathemathicalism
It might be mathematicalism which keeps the physicalist identity
thesis of the Aristotelian, and physicalize mathematical object. It
still ignore the FPI, the reversal with
All,
As I explain in my book on Reality, entropy states are not fundamental, as
often assumed, because they depend on the spatial mix of prevailing forces.
For example the maximum entropy state will be completely different in a
positive gravitation universe than it would be in a negative
On 08 Jan 2014, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Bell derived his inequality assuming QM with collapse
No he did not, Bell makes no such assumption or interpretation,
in fact not one word about Quantum Mechanics is
Telmo,
Thanks for the link but see my new topic A theory of consciousness of a
few days ago which no one has even commented on and which is much more
reasonable and explanatory.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
In case you haven't seen it...
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric
I think you would have enormous difficulty finding one single physicist on
the face of the earth who says time is symmetrical well OK,... maybe a
physicist
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
you could have laws where a large number of initial states can all lead
to the same final state (many cellular automata work this way, specifically
On the contrary, I replied with a question that went unanswered.
It was a question about whether a human baby, fed a stream of virtual sense
data as in the movie The Matrix, could be considered conscious in your
theory, as you seemed to suggest that consciousness was a property of
reality, as a
Edgar, to your oldie question: sometimes my replies appear WITHIN the
origianl post headings, not as a separate mail-in. I use the arrow at the
top of the post to be answered, when a box opens for my reply. I dislike
the reply at the end of the post.
Why? who knows, I am agnosstic (ha ha)
John
Eh, just looks like more information-theoretic functionalism. Explanatory
Gap? Hard Problem? States of matter make sense...solid, liquid, gas, plasma
- hungry doesn't fit in.
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
In case you haven't seen it...
John,
All organisms, including babies, are conscious. Of course baby's minds do
not compute the details of reality that well initially. But the results of
those poor computations are nevertheless conscious...
The necessary distinction (elucidated by Chalmers and others as well as me)
is
Here is an example to help illustrate what I think is the relationship
between information and qualia that makes the most sense.
Here I am using the delta (Δ) to denote difference, n to mean numbers
or information, kappa for aesthetic kind or qualia, and delta n degree
(Δn°) for difference
John,
PS: BTW your statement *I know for sure that we don't know anything for
sure. is of course an illogical and meaningless self-contradiction. It has
no relevance to reality*
*Edgar*
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:45:20 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
Edgar wrote:
*Terren,*
*All human
Can fact exist beyond the dimensions of perception?
No. Existence and perception are the same thing, although your or my
perception can't include all that can be perceived.
Does ${this} question make sense or does it not?
Everything makes sense to some extent.
To cut it short, I am
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether *TRUE BELIEF* means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely), or
2. the TRUTH that one believes in it (a maybe)?
(none of the two may be 'true').
JM
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Dec
Entropy is generally considered to be an *emergent* property of matter - if
you look closely enough at matter, it becomes impossible to see it (e.g. in
single atom interactions). The source of the entropy gradient appears to
be boundary conditions on the universe (e.g. the existence of the big
When working with private physics, the operators used are metaphorical and
implicit, not explicit. Qualia is LIKE the “mass” of privacy. The will to
will is like the “Energy” of privacy, and realism is like the “c²”. In my
understanding, the notion that c is the speed of light is really a
On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes as what data feels
like when it's being processed - hardly a detailed theory. He starts his Mathematical
Universe Hypothesis from the opposite pole to Bruno, so to speak. I wonder if it's
It seems to me Max Tegmark is assuming that consciousness is a state of
matter, and looking at what properties that matter must have. Hence he
doesn't have an explanatory theory, just an assumption. It is a materialist
assumtpion, I guess similar to Hugh Everett III's viewpoint when he
considers
Edgar,
Thanks for clarifying. Your theory sounds like a spinoff of panpsychism...
would you say a rock is capable of experiencing? If not, what is the
theoretical difference between a rock and a baby that demarcates what is
capable of experiencing, and what isn't?
Terren
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014
On 9 January 2014 11:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes as
what data feels like when it's being processed - hardly a detailed
theory. He starts his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
On 9 January 2014 07:01, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand your point, are you arguing that time is
asymmetric or that it is not? The existence of neutral kaon decay
strengthens the already very strong
On 9 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric
I think you would have enormous difficulty finding one single physicist on
the face of the
On 1/8/2014 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi John,
On 07 Jan 2014, at 23:20, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, you made my day.
Reminds me of a Hungarian humorous author (P. Howard) who wrote about a blind
philosopher (The Sleepy Elephant) and his assistant living in the deep Sahara - showing
the
On 1/8/2014 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
if there are more ways to be disorganized than organized (and there are) then any change
those laws of physics make will almost certainly lead to a increase in entropy.
This ignores the fact that entropy, and organization are relative to some coarse
On 1/8/2014 10:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
mailto:laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric
I think you would have enormous difficulty finding one single physicist on the
Dear LizR,
Tegmark's What data feels like when it is processes seems to require
some ability to tell the difference whether it is being processed or it
merely exists as Platonic strings of numbers, No?
Did my hypothesis using Wheeler's Surprise 20 questions idea make any
sense? My claim
Dear Brent,
I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something
real about the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism
that does not involve a god's eye view by appealing to the possibility of
coherent communication between multiple observers. Observers
On 9 January 2014 14:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear LizR,
Tegmark's What data feels like when it is processes seems to require
some ability to tell the difference whether it is being processed or it
merely exists as Platonic strings of numbers, No?
Hm. I'm not
Dear LizR,
Creating time indexically (or otherwise) out maps to the natural ordering
of integers will not work! We use some equivalent to a Godel numbering to
code algorithms and distinguish them from each other, no? This break the
natural order and thus making it unavailable as an absolute
Bruno writes Bp p, where Bp ambiguously means Proves p (Beweisbar?) and Believes
p. Believes p and P is then a belief that is true. I put scare quotes around true
because I think it just means is a consequence of some (Peano's) axioms, which is not
necessarily the same as expresses a fact.
An article in the 4/1/14 issue of New Scientist indicates that photons
from the most energetic GRB to date (GRB130427A, seen on 27/4/13) have a
lag of 100s of seconds between the low and high energy rays. This is at a
redshift of 0.34 or 4.68GLyr, so plenty of scope for interacting with any
On 1/8/2014 4:11 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
mailto:laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already agrees physics is
On 9 January 2014 13:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The equations of evolution are CPT invariant (with possible exceptions
from GR). Vic Stenger has written a book Timeless Reality in which he
shows that the counter-intuitive aspects of QM, like violation of Bell's
inequality, can
On 1/8/2014 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something real about
the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism that does not involve a
god's eye view by appealing to the possibility of coherent
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/8/2014 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something
real about the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism
that does not
Dear Brent,
I have given my definition of reality previously, but here it is again.
For some collection of observers that can communicate, a reality is that
which is incontrovertible. In other words, a reality is that which all
observers agree. I do not like the idea of an a priori reality as
46 matches
Mail list logo
