On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an
idea of a mind.
This contradicts your admission, if I remember correctly, that 23 is
prime is true or false independently of us.
2+2=4 is infinitely
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly
limited. That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out
there somewhere is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-
parsimonious.
I will stop comment, if
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
this question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a
'simulation'.
All those
On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of
reality itself,
Then it is circular.
not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means
something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual
On 14 Jan 2014, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the
reality of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity
on that kind of argument, at least when made public.
So in private you
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily
filtered through our own
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just
more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
On 15 January 2014 21:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine
whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is
because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the
entire reality in which the simulation is
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first
place.
The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the
measure problem on all
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you
didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.
Bruno
On 15 Jan 2014, at 05:33, meekerdb wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI
about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous
(FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing excerpt that starts at the
bottom of page 30:
Jacob: Can't you ask it
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.
You don't consider Newton's Law of Gravitation to be a formal
theory?
No, but I understand what you
Fortunately it isn't clear that nanomachines that can destroy the Earth are
possible, at least not as envisoned by Drexler etc (the grey goo
scenario). Clearly nanomachines (in the form of viruses) could wipe out
humanity, but nanomachines able to disassemble all living creatures are
less likely,
OK, I see what you mean. (And you're right, it was on FOAR that you set me
various exercises.)
So maybe I asked for the wrong thing from Edgar. I don't suppose I will get
anything remotely like the *Principia* no matter how many times I ask, but
out of interest, what *should* I be asking him for?
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to
argue about, so let's try again.
Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time
symmetry of
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's
being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so
let's try again.
Now how about
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:44, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L.
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first
place.
The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical
comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which
you
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
That is the explanation
It's not, because you force us to assume the very thing you are trying
to explain.
Telmo.
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 04:40,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:45, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending
Freq,
So now you are on my case because my previous girlfriend died of cancer a
few years back?!
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by
someone who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant
loopholes to argue about,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer
program. It's always able to compute its next computation. Same with the
'program' that computes reality. It is always able to compute the next
state of the universe. If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in
'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens,
and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement
is an illusion of perspective from inside
Bruno,
Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful.
The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, but it must be so in a meaningful
way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'.
So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental
axiom.
What is YOUR
Telmo,
Thanks Telmo!
Freq's comment was especially painful as my previous lady companion died of
cancer a few years ago which is why I was looking again.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:17:44 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running
computer program.
Run by which computer? Arithmetic or some physical reality?
running computer program is ambiguous.
It's always able to compute its next
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there
in 'Platonia'.
I use only the fact that the arithmetical proposition is true of
false. It is the belief that 1+1=3 is false or true,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful.
Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful.
The fundamental axiom MUST be circular,
Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all.
but it must
Bruno,
If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms of your
UDA then where do those come from?
Unless you can answer that question you have a gap in your theory that mine
doesn't have.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
OK, I see what you mean. (And you're right, it was on FOAR that you
set me various exercises.)
Yes. nice to see you on the everything list!
So maybe I asked for the wrong thing from Edgar.
I think that you ask, what we all ask. To be
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant
I am basically a humanist here, speaking only for myself. A secular one, most
often, and a religious humanist, on occasion. So, I always nag, to gain
perspective: How does this intellectual pursuit, help humanity, how does this
help the human condition? Yes, its a buzz kill, I admit. But, I
PGC,
No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted was
in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really starting to
understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner.
Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's
2014/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of
reality then you ARE effectively saying that Arithmetic exists because
arithmetic exists. whether you verbalize it or not, and that is your
implicit unstated fundamental axiom.
That is certainly not less circular than
On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there
in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything
happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know
On 15 Jan 2014, at 15:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms
of your UDA then where do those come from?
Russell and Whitehead suggested that they could be derived from logic
alone, but that has been refuted, and today, we know that we
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
PGC,
No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted
was in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really
starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life
partner.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of
reality then you ARE effectively saying that Arithmetic exists
because arithmetic exists.
That is true.
But the premise is incorrect.
I do not assume that the
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:43, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014
Hey everyone,
I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on
other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some
interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to
bother others about it.
Edgar has repeatedly posted links to
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a moving
arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified block
time is false.
2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem
with block time. I received no convincing answers
On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time
You did not
(by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment)
It does not...
, so since SR is well verified block time is false.
BS
Quentin
2. I asked you around a
Dan,
First, thanks for the apology which I gratefully accept.
However you have your facts completely wrong.
It was NOT ME that posted a link to my personal blog, not a single one. It
was Terren that did that as I recall, but it most certainly was NOT ME.
I did post a SINGLE link to my
Quentin,
If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to
recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain
what is wrong with that argument specifically?
Do you actually remember the argument?
Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to
recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain
what is wrong with that argument specifically?
People have already done it... The main
I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or
blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would
certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than
clear.
I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind
on
Quentin,
You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly
comment on whether it is valid or not
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
Quentin,
If you are so sure about
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly
comment on whether it is valid or not
You make my point It's obvious, the problem is with me, not your theory.
Quentin
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15,
Fair enough, I retract repeatedly posted links to his personal website...
I guess, in my mind, it just seemed like you repeatedly posted links to
your website, because it always seems like you end up talking about
yourself and your book, and not about the ideas you have, and when you do
talk
Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding your own
death, as there are no guarantees about the quality of the surviving
continuations. I remember Bruno saying once (paraphrasing) consciousness
is a prison. The one comfort I do enjoy from it - to the extent that I
place any
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
comforting, but it's just superstition..
There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
I have to agree I don't
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century deserves to be shot.
I am not sure whether or not the word is defined
Wow, Liz, very sorry to hear about your friend. If you don't mind me asking
(and if you do mind, simply ignore my question), if you magically just knew
that the universe was in fact a large computation engine where all
possibilities are eventually played out, and also entailing some form of
On what authority do you make such claims?
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
comforting, but it's just superstition..
There must be a living human body to produce a
2014/1/15 freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com
On what authority do you make such claims?
Isn't it obvious ? His own, it is so obviously obvious, it's a shame^Wjoke
you didn't obviously register so obvious.
Quentin
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L.
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a
simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you
manipulate
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending /*dismissal*/ in anyone else's
So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time,
like tears in rain... ;-)
... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example
the claim that:
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
comforting, but it's just
Hey Craig!
I watched the video... very cool!
Questions:
1) Who is the user of the interface? What is us?
2) What is the interface representing? Hoffman uses the analogy of the file
and the trash bin icons on the desktop. In a computer, I know that the file
ultimately represents binary values
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where Glak
emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations
from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.
You cannot change the
Stephen -- I like how he derives the natural numbers from some basic set
operations on an empty set. One question though how does the empty set
itself arise. While an empty set contains; it is not the same thing as
nothing. It is a container; it envelopes, contains, encompasses. Even if
something
On 1/15/2014 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not convinced, as I tend to not believe in any primitive time and space, at least
when I tend to believe in comp (of course I *know* nothing).
QM is indeed reversible (in large part), but using this to select one branch by boundary
condition, is
On 1/15/2014 4:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer program. It's
always able to compute its next computation. Same with the 'program' that computes
reality. It is always able to compute the next state of the universe.
On 1/15/2014 4:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female
On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in arithmetic. If Glak
is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us
What does same mean here. Same coupling constants?...same number of Higgs
bosons?...same spacetime dimensions?
On 1/15/2014 11:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding your own death, as
there are no guarantees about the quality of the surviving continuations. I remember
Bruno saying once (paraphrasing) consciousness is a prison. The one comfort I do
On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
comforting, but it's just superstition..
Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go at
the other person's
On 16 January 2014 09:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding your own
death, as there are no guarantees about the quality of the surviving
continuations. I remember Bruno saying
This, after he has already agreed that he would say yes to the doctor.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
On 16 January 2014 08:28, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
Wow, Liz, very sorry to hear about your friend. If you don't mind me
asking (and if you do mind, simply ignore my question), if you magically
just knew that the universe was in fact a large computation engine where
On 16 January 2014 08:52, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time,
like tears in rain... ;-)
... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example
the claim that:
When people die they
I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or
another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of
questions versus answers:
http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:19:39 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam
A good answer is one that doesn't spoil the question.
--- P. T. Barnum
On 1/15/2014 1:27 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or another. I'm
also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of questions versus answers:
Yeah, the human craving for transcendence.
-Original Message-
From: freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 1:20 pm
Subject: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Hey everyone,
I'm
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the internet
and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a line. I
think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own heart and ask
yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own
On 16 January 2014 05:57, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I
mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one
initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while
being attacked by someone
Snarkiness is also popular amongst the physicists in the world, for its how
they intimidate each other into submission. If you can't prove a point, use
ridicule (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #4).
-Original Message-
From: freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com
To:
On 16 January 2014 08:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our
Mr Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century
On 16 January 2014 08:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
that he is in a simulation, but, unless you
On 16 January 2014 10:27, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or
another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of
questions versus answers:
Brent,
You asked me how I explained the spin entanglement paradox day before
yesterday and I referred you to my detailed answer at the the initial post
of the Another shot at how spacetime arises from quantum reality topic.
Again I refer you to the same initial post in that topic for the
Liz,
Wow, do we have some really superstitious members here! I wouldn't have
expected that on a science list.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:14:24 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die
On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a
moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified
block time is false.
SR doesn't require a moving arrow of time, and the
Thanks Chris, much appreciated!
Best,
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the
internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a
line. I think you owe the man an
On 16 January 2014 07:54, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Quentin,
If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to
recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain
what is wrong with that argument specifically?
SR doesn't require a
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
