On 19 Jan 2014, at 20:35, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 03:39, LizR wrote:
It would seem that sufficiently advanced technology will
eventually be able to detect all the neural correlates of
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I also find it unlikely that the subst level is above the quantum
level. Or at least I think that if it's at the quantum level then
we can guarantee that the duplication arguments would work
(assuming we
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 18:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Briefly, computationalism is the idea that you could replace the
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:34, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
Physics emerges from the FPI on UD*. It is an open question if
there is
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:26, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2014 7:38 PM, LizR wrote:
Or it could be because we, denizens of this physics/universe,
invent them.
Why would that make it effective, though? After all we also
invented fairy
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in the axioms, which is the case for
elementary arithmetic.
But what does believe in the axioms mean. Do we really believe we
can
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 17:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
But apparently the brain has a lot to do with those computations
in
On 20 January 2014 16:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:40:45PM +1300, LizR wrote:
One problem, surely, in real life is not knowing what the other person's
utility function is? So someone may behave apparently irrationally -
e.g.
giving away
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational agent is someone who always
chooses the optimal course of action, not that
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem not to appreciate that this dissipates the one essential
advantage of mathematical monism: we understand mathematics (because, I
say, we invent it). But if it's a mere human invention trying to model the
Platonic ding
On 20 January 2014 18:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The modeling of the world is in our interpretation of it, a mapping from
the observable world into mathematics, manipulation and inference, and the
interpretation of the result as applying to the observable world. If it
works to
Is that the motto of the Golden Dawn?
On 20 January 2014 20:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY
-- T.H. White http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/426944.T_H_White, *
The Once and Future King http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1140206 *
On
On 20 Jan 2014, at 01:24, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 06:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We can logically conceive them. Imagine a dead corpse. You can
easily conceive that he is not conscious. Now, animate the dead
corpse so that it behaves like he was alive, but keep
On 20 Jan 2014, at 06:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 3:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in the axioms, which is
On 20 Jan 2014, at 07:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No! This is not unknown. I am cobbling ideas together, sure, think
about it! What are we thinking? If the UD implements or emulates all
computations then it implements all worlds, ala Kripke. That would
include all models of
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY
-- T.H. White http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/426944.T_H_White, *
The Once and Future King http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1140206 *
I'll have to update my paper. I thought
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:09:02PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational agent is someone
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Thank you for writing this remark! It is very helpful.
You are welcome.
I could see where there could be some debate on the constructability
claim, as the set of all programs in L could be infinite and thus
the
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:41, Russell Standish wrote:
I
think we should keep all options on the table, and look for
connections between them, as different techniques will provide those
derivations more easily or more difficult.
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It
only seems to work because we
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving irrationally by definition. Yet, it could be a
beneficial
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
How do you deal with the fact that there are more than one self-
consistent theory where those theories contradict each other?
That is what explains the consciousness differentiation. Take the WM-
duplication, as basic
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Forgive a small cherry-picking. You wrote:
It does not necessarily make the physical into a mathematical
structure. It makes the whole coupling consciousness/physicalness
into an arithmetical internal phenomenon.
Can the
On 19 Jan 2014, at 20:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
nobody would buy an argument of a lawyer saying that his client is
not guilty, because his client is just a bunch of particles obeying
to the SWE.
I would buy the
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:42:51PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:03:31AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
Thanks for your answer. But I am having trouble seeing the link
between doing something stupid and randomness. Are you implying
randomness is necessary for stupidity or
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:14, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:56:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2014 9:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
No, I'm not. Rational agents are entirely predictable. They always
choose the best course of action, or fail to make a choice at
all (it
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:39, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:09:02PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:46, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:41, Russell Standish wrote:
I
think we should keep all options on the table, and look for
connections between them, as different techniques will provide
All,
I almost hesitate to post this. It's obvious nonsense but a good example of
how science can be wildly misinterpeted. But on the other hand some people
on this group will no doubt take it seriously since it is compatible with
some of the other MWI fantasies advocated here. Will be
On Jan 19, 2014, at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/19/2014 3:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we
All,
Here's one more theory from the many in my book on Reality:
As Misner, Thorne and Wheeler note briefly in their book on Gravitation,
INTERgalactic space is continually expanding with the Hubble expansion,
however INTRAgalactic space is NOT expanding because it is gravitationally
bound.
Yeah, I have read Lanza, don't forget Bob Berman (astronomer) and the
Biocentrism hypothesis. Lanza has not written on biocentrism for the last
couple of years. Incidentally, MWI, David Deustch, and Max Tegmark, not
withstanding, is not falsifiable. So, any fantasy is no worse then the theory
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
If a rational agent can compute its utility to determine its next course
of action, then so can any observer with access to the same
environmental information.
Yes, but only by going through the same process the
On 1/20/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I also find it unlikely that the subst level is above the quantum level. Or at least
I think that if it's at the quantum level then we can guarantee that the
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
bunch of particles obey the Schrodinger Wave Equation, but I'll be damned
it I can see what that has to do with his guild or innocence; that bunch of
On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And to answer this properly, you have to define physical existence of Brent without
using arithmetic.
Brent:=the being who typed this sentence. (Or next time you're in California, come by
and I'll give an ostensive definition - and a cup of
On 1/20/2014 12:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in the axioms, which is the case for elementary
arithmetic.
But what does believe in the
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving irrationally by
On 1/20/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the definition. A rational
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
You seem not to appreciate that this dissipates the one essential advantage
of
mathematical monism: we understand mathematics (because, I say, we invent
it).
In The Once and Future King it is a lampoon of government authority. Doesn't seem like
a good source for metaphysical truth.
Brent
On 1/20/2014 1:15 AM, LizR wrote:
Is that the motto of the Golden Dawn?
On 20 January 2014 20:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/20/2014 1:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 06:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 3:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not.
On 1/20/2014 1:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:09:02PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not the
On 1/20/2014 1:46 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:41, Russell Standish wrote:
I
think we should keep all options on the table, and look for
connections between them, as different techniques will provide
To better ascertain what dark matter is, you may need to give us a clue on your
view on the volume of the cosmos. As in, just the Hubble Volume, 42 billion
light years, 80 billion light years (both estimates have been given) or
infinite? If it is infinite I guess that it will impact your
All,
There are obviously a lot of very intelligent members here who are well
read in modern science. I think everyone would agree with this.
However the usual MO of group members (true of most groups) is simply to
argue for their own theories and to criticize those of others, and as a
result
Spud,
I don't follow your argument, since the actual impact of dark matter is
clearly real and measurable.
But the universe cannot be infinite since nothing actual can be infinite
since infinity is not an actual number but the result of a never ending
process (keep adding forever) which could
On 1/20/2014 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing
Hi Liz, and others,
I explain the classical modal logic.
It extends classical propositional logic (CPL), that we have already
encounter.
I will recall it first, and present it in a way which will suit well
the modal extensions of CPL.
One big advantage of CPL on all other propositional
Dear Bruno,
The idea that I am pursuing here is how to think of Becoming in a way
that is consistent with comp. So far all we have are eternal static
infinite entities. Measures are hard to define.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at
OK, you are invoking the asymptotic aspect of math. But I am not sure the
cosmos needs to obey arithmetic, to function? But, please continue on topic. I
recuse myself on this.
-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
To: everything-list
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true, and the
Hameroff-Penrose thesis that microtubules are da' bomb, I feel we have to ask
what good this does us? Medically, or philosophically, I am not certain. How
does knowing that one of the moons of Neptune is called Neirid?
Dear Bruno,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital computer.
So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition. because
it embrace everything.
Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using
Dear Bruno,
Is it possible for a Computation to be a Model also? What is the
obstruction?
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 07:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No! This is not unknown. I am cobbling ideas together, sure, think about
Dear Jason,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/19/2014 3:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
Good luck with that! We tried a wiki project a few years ago to do
exactly what you propose, but it died of neglect. I'm not sure if the
results of that effort is still around, even.
Cheers
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:18:37AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
There are obviously a lot of very
Becoming can emerge from being, or at least it appeared to do so from the
reel of film (or digital equivalent) I watched last night.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
Dear LizR,
Did you take into consideration the rapid transition, enabled by the
projection machine, that made the appearance of motion appear? We have to
take all the details of the schemata into account. The movie did not
magically appear on the screen...
Consider a movie where all the
I at least have modified several of my views since being on this group (and
FOAR). It generally takes a while, and involves lots of discussion, but it
has happened.
For example, I now have a greater belief that comp may be correct than when
I was first introduced to it, when it seemed completely
Dear LizR,
If you have a chance, scan through this paper. Its ideas follow the same
basic ontology of Becoming as mine. (My thinking is far less formal and
even crackpotish in comparison.)
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Eigen.pdf
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Stephen Paul King
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving
On 1/20/2014 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
There are obviously a lot of very intelligent members here who are well read in modern
science. I think everyone would agree with this.
Except for a few that are unfamiliar with relativity theory.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:33:31PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:39, Russell Standish wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the optimum action,
so are behaving irrationally by
On 1/20/2014 2:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But Russell seems to think that specific reason means some
objective, i.e. publicly determinable reason. In general one's
utility function is private, subjective and not known to others or
maybe even to yourself.
Not at all - the
On 1/20/2014 2:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But Russell seems to think that specific reason means some
objective, i.e. publicly determinable reason. In general one's
utility function is private, subjective and not known to others or
On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If you remember Cantor, you see that if we take all variables into
account, the multiverse is already a continuum. OK? A world is defined by a
infinite sequence like true, false, false, true, true, true, ...
corresponding to p,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:35:13AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:14, Russell Standish wrote:
Well yes, that is certainly arguable, and I'm indeed somewhat critical
of the notion myself. But is not my concept - it is the accepted
concept from economics, game theory,
On 21 January 2014 00:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I almost hesitate to post this. It's obvious nonsense but a good example of
how science can be wildly misinterpeted. But on the other hand some people
on this group will no doubt take it seriously since it is compatible
Haha.
Edgar, I have also modified my views through participation on this list. As
it has for Liz, Bruno's comp has become borderline credible to me, though
I am far from a true believer. I've also been educated in a lot of
philosophy of mind and had my grasp of key concepts in physics refined
Beware Edgar! You pulled the string on John Clark's back labelled free
will. He now will emit noise...
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:05:43 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
This has nothing to do with
It looks like I need to update the database connection information:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as
useful as any page would be Bio pages of members, which state where
people fall on a number of questions, and we can trend
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:33:18 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
is
quantum random based (we agree on that), it doesn't mean
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:28:03AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
Re the creativity question - it is still an open problem, ISTM.
I think this is solved. Creativity = Universality. (Turing
universality). Post gave a definition of creativity,
On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Are the following laws? I don't put the last outer parenthesis for reason
of readability.
p - p
This is a law because p - q is equivalent to (~p V q) and (p V ~p) must be
(true OR false), or (false OR true) which are both
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And to answer this properly, you have to define physical existence of
Brent without using arithmetic.
Brent:=the being who typed this sentence. (Or next time you're in
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:53:41AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Except in games (like chess) you never have perfect knowledge. The
definition of rationality you cited recognized this by saying you
optimised your *expected* utility.
But you can optimise your
expected utility by acting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox
LOL! we have arrived.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And to answer this properly, you
On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem not to appreciate that this dissipates the one essential
advantage of mathematical monism: we understand mathematics
On 1/20/2014 4:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And to answer this properly, you have to define physical
existence of
On 21 January 2014 06:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The love is not very apparent. Religionists here have opposed teaching
evolution, the big-bang, and the neural basis of mind. So far as I know
they have not objected to arithmetic.
Give them time. Maybe nobody has told them
On 21 January 2014 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way
a bunch of particles obey the Schrodinger Wave Equation, but I'll be damned
it I can see
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the
MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether
the past can be undefined at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked
this because I recall (somewhat vaguely unfortunately) reading or
On 21 January 2014 06:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:13:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
That's not
On 1/20/2014 5:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem not to
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or unpredictable) behaviour can be rational don't fit it, even
though most people think that such actions are at times the most rational
choice.
On 21 January 2014 14:18, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the
MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether
the past can be undefined at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked
this because
On 21 January 2014 12:49, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like I need to update the database connection information:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as
useful as any page would be Bio pages of members,
On 1/20/2014 5:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting with every possible quantum state. This has been
understandably criticised as a vastly extravagant explanation. A whole
On 1/20/2014 5:18 PM, Pierz wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the MWI experts
out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether the past can be undefined
at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked this because I recall (somewhat
On 1/20/2014 5:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jan
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And to answer this properly, you have to define physical
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:41:46 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 21 January 2014 14:18, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully
the MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked
whether the past
I'd be interested too.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:49:20 AM UTC+11, Jason wrote:
It looks like I need to update the database connection information:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as
useful as any page would be
I'm not sure. Maybe when I've completely nutted out Brent's answer below
it'll make sense, but it seems to me that a universe in thermodynamic
equilibrium will still continue to diverge more than it merges, it's just
that the different configurations of matter/energy will look much alike. In
fact
A process which transforms information? Ultimately, digital computation
comes down to the NAND operation, I'm told, which means it's a lot of bit
twiddling which ultimately transforms one lots of bits into another. I
guess versions with non-binary data (like DNA I assume?) can be reduced in
They talk about changes spreading out, perhaps gradually. ISTM that some
changes aren't going to propagate very far or very fast. So the universe is
full of bubbles in which there are a lot of local branches and I guess
spaces in which they don't make enough difference to spread, or not much...
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
