On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014
2014-02-12 1:17 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did
not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was
On 11 Feb 2014, at 14:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with
it! :-)
On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:07, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it
gives it its reality. By taking place within reality these
computations produce real universe
On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:35, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital
transformation of consciousness is perfectly
On 11 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 3:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The laws of physics or arithmetic makes it possible for you to
express your
point, but the content of your post
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
My question was what is the unique consistent definition of
the 1p after the duplication has been performed?.
In the 3-1 view, that does not exist,
Then the 1p is of
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes
more sense.:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
So the take away is that :
1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an
event under a description. An explanation must show why it was
likely than an event of that type occurred. - Thomas Nagel
This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
ASK A PHYSICIAN. I went to med school until I was too sick to
continue.
But I learned enough to never ASK A PHYSICIAN.
I agree. To be sick is bad, but to be sick and meet a doctor can be
real bad, very often. Few doctor are well prepared
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:17, chris peck wrote:
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical
realism in
the sense required for this argument. I think
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in
S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.
The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of
X1*\X1, (and even that
2014-02-12 12:17 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that on
any universal system, and comp predicts that this will always give
the same physics.
How does it predict that?
All universal systems
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I think what is shown is that there can be a world including
conscious beings which does not require physical events in our
world, i.e. they can be merely arithmetical or Turing machince
events. In
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical
realism in
the sense
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with
On 12 Feb 2014, at 04:12, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 14:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55,
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an
event *of that type*
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for
quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our
neurology. It is the idea
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:26:51 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 05:21, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse,
Not at all. I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion of
a same point in SPACEtime is not the same as a same point in p-TIME. They
are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in SPACE, but
every observer is ALWAYS at the same point in p-TIME because
Jesse,
But I just pointed out in my previous reply that your example is NOT even
correct relativity. Non-accelerated relative motion does NOT cause any
actual age differences because it's symmetric. A and B are in the exact
same relative motion with respect to each other so the effect has to
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Not at all. I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion
of a same point in SPACEtime is not the same as a same point in p-TIME.
They are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in
Jesse,
He's another way to understand it which might be clearer. It's from the
perspective of an arbitrary observer A.
1. A (me) is always in the current moment of P-time as P-time progresses,
because that is the only locus of actual reality because it's only in this
current moment of p-time
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an
event under a description. An explanation must show why
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for
quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within,
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of
Bruno, and Craig,
Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime.
In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to
compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as
17 are not necessary for reality to compute the
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm assured a sackful of doorknobs can be used as a computer...
Yes but to do that you'd need to arrange the doorknobs so that they
interacted with each other in a way that Turing would approve of, and to
make such an arrangement
Edgar,
On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno, and Craig,
Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a
prime.
Which confirms that you are using computational in a mysterious
idiosyncratic personal sense, and I recall you that you have never
On 2/12/2014 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 14:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric
If Bell had made the opposite assumption then Bell would have been a fool.
Bell was not a fool.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg
On 2/12/2014 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
...
Brent
That which can explain *anything* fails to explain at all.
With physicalism, QM explains everything.
On 2/12/2014 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually yes, but that is not relevant, as arithmetic simulate all digital approximation
of all physical universe, (and the real physical universe is a non Turing emulable sum
on all those computations), so arithmetic provides the worlds you need to be
On 2/12/2014 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
True, Bell couldn't explain it but he did prove that if his inequality is
violated then there is something that needs to be explained. Bell said
On 2/12/2014 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that on any universal
system, and comp predicts that this will always give the same physics.
How does
John, I add a comment to my preview post.
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
Then the 1p is of no use to anyone and neither is the 3-1 view
whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
It is a bit unfair, as I introduced that 3-1 notation exactly to
reply to your first attempt of
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:17 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their way
through Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then maintain that
Clark's erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in some way obtuse or
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:32:20 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on
modal logic, directly related to the machine discourse (and this will
be justified later, as it is not obvious at all).
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
...
Brent
That which can explain anything fails to explain at all.
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Our internal experience is informed
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote:
Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
True, Bell couldn't explain it but he did prove that if his inequality
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually yes, but that is not relevant, as arithmetic simulate all
digital approximation of all physical universe, (and the real
physical universe is a non Turing emulable sum on all those
computations),
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno, and Craig,
Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime.
In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to
compute its current state. If this is true then
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that
on any universal system, and comp predicts that this
On 13 February 2014 03:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
He's another way to understand it which might be clearer. It's from the
perspective of an arbitrary observer A.
1. A (me) is always in the current moment of P-time as P-time progresses,
because that is the only locus
On 13 February 2014 03:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
5. The easy way is just to pause the experiment at any point and compare
clocks (that is in effect what the twins do when they meet) because this
immediately re-synchronizes clock rates enabling the real actual age
differences
On 12 February 2014 21:21, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33,
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in
some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics.
Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible,
apparently.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/12/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-green-energy-source
--
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 it, send an email
to
Let's check back in 50 years on how that turns out :)
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:57 PM
Subject: Edging closer to nuclear fusion...
apparently.
Yeah, exactly.
Meanwhile we already have a fusion reactor up and running, should anyone
want to use it.
[image: Inline images 1]
On 13 February 2014 12:10, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
Let's check back in 50 years on how that turns out :)
--
We all do use it already -- even as we burn the fossil fuel banked in coal
seams and gas oil bearing formations, all of which ultimately exists because
a long time ago some plant had done the work of transforming a minuscule
portion of the energy of flux put out by our fusion energy source in
On 13 February 2014 12:44, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
We all do use it already -- even as we burn the fossil fuel banked in coal
seams and gas oil bearing formations, all of which ultimately exists
because a long time ago some plant had done the work of transforming a
The solar flux at earth orbit is on average (because the earth's orbit is not
circular and the solar output is not constant) more or less 1370 W/m2; The
Earth's radius is 6.378 X 10^6m; The Earth's albedo is around 0.3. So the total
incident solar energy that is obstructed by the earth's disk
About 4 million tons of it per second :-)
Yes. We need to intercept an appreciable amount of that energy to become a
type 1 civilisation...
On 13 February 2014 13:53, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
The solar flux at earth orbit is on average (because the earth's orbit is
not
On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though.
So how would you know you were a copy?
It has nothing to do with whether or not I would know, it's because in my
understanding, copying is not
On 2/12/2014 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on modal logic,
directly related to the machine discourse (and this will be justified later, as it is
not obvious at all).
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014
On 2/12/2014 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
...
Brent
That which can
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in
S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.
The only thing you can
67 matches
Mail list logo
