Sounds (vaguely) similar to Fred Pohl's A Plague of Pythons.
On 24 February 2014 20:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2014 10:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2014 9:26 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:35:33 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:39:50 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
They would pull further away, I believe. Tidal drag slows the rotation of
the bodies (for example by pulling the ocean out into an ovoid in this
case) and
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:45:36 AM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:27, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
John Searle in one of his papers proposes that if our brain were being
gradually replaced we would find ourselves losing qualia while
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:12:05 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks
nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise
are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES
Jesse,
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and then
we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid intersection.
Is that correct?
And that those clocks read what is called the coordinate times of
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:56:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi ghibbsa,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:19, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno,
You've said somewhere in this thread that by logic comp
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:59:44 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
This seems vaguely akin to the discovery that most of the mass-energy of a
proton is the binding energy holding it together. If we found that the mass
of the quarks was also in fact binding energy we might end up with
something
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:42 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:56:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi ghibbsa,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno,
You've said
On 24 February 2014 11:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Yo David, You said somewhere you had a thought for how consciousness might
be. I'm into that one at the moment so I'd be interested to hear anything
you have to say. Assuming it's not secret squirrel - which if it is mazel
tov geezer you go
Craig,
How do you define experiential phenomena without invoking an observer to
experience them? Just something that COULD be experienced if an observer
was there to experience it?
In my book I define what I call Xperience as the computational alteration
of any information form (information
Craig,
PS: but there do seem to be a lot of 1p perspective fanatics which amounts
to pretty much the same thing.
Edgar
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:43:08 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:13:15 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
Yes of course there can
Liz,
Good points!
Edgar
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:59:44 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
This seems vaguely akin to the discovery that most of the mass-energy of a
proton is the binding energy holding it together. If we found that the mass
of the quarks was also in fact binding energy we
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:05:17 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 11:27, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Yo David, You said somewhere you had a thought for how consciousness might
be. I'm into that one at the moment so I'd be interested to hear anything
you have to
Craig,
Pardon me but what does CTM stand for?
Edgar
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:55:27 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle
On 24 February 2014 03:38, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February
On 24 February 2014 13:13, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, so long as you understood the sort of thing I was suggesting you had
said, I think you'd probably know if you had said it, so I guess I got you
mixed up. Sorry about that.
But I've no idea what you are suggesting I had said. Could you
Stathis,
1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer
which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If
anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of time
flowing, which is the correct understanding...
2. I assume in
Stathis,
You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps
unknowingly so.
You state The me, yesterday is not me, now
Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection
mechanism is the 'NOW' which you mention. It is the now that you are in
that
Ghibbsa,
To address one of your points.
My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and
adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is
inconsistent with relativity in any respect I would consider my theory
falsified.
I'm not trying to
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pardon me but what does CTM stand for?
It is Computationalist Theory of Mind. It is another name of
computationalism or comp, although usually comp refers explicitly to
the very weak (logically) version of it.
Usually CTM assumes that the
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:17:02 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 03:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Thanks Bruno...
As an advocate of a computational reality, I certainly believe that part of
that universe (subsets) is computational minds, though I suspect we'd
disagree about most of the rest
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:53:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014,
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:16:00 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
Pardon me but what does CTM stand for?
Computational Theory of Mind.
Someone mentioned that they are tired of the word 'Comp', and I agree.
Something about it I never liked. Makes it sound friendly and natural,
On 23 Feb 2014, at 15:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by which computations are
encountered.
My hypothesis, drawn from both
Craig,
All this discussion about replacing selves or brains is entirely a matter
of definition, and thus pretty much a meaningless discussion.
It is clear that if we could replace in EVERY last detail, that the new
self would be an exact duplicate of the old self with the exact same mental
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:09:35 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
How do you define experiential phenomena without invoking an observer to
experience them?
The same way that I would invoke 'material phenomena' or 'energetic
phenomena' without an observer to experience them. We
Craig,
I agree too. Makes it sound low brow and pop culturish, like some consumer
product for housewives. But that's a good way to distinguish it from my
computational reality.
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:58:19 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological changes
which move them? The neurological change is the expression of what you
actually are. These primitive levels of sense are beyond the question of
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:19:09 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:13, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Well, so long as you understood the sort of thing I was suggesting you had
said, I think you'd probably know if you had said it, so I guess I got you
mixed up.
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:15:53 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:19:09 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:13, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, so long as you understood the sort of thing I was suggesting you
had said, I think you'd probably
On 24 February 2014 14:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you said something like I may have stumble [an explanation],,,
Oh, well that definitely wasn't me, then.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the confusion
between comp and its assumptions (like John Clark does sometimes), or
perhaps just to allude to the fact that it is a common theory used by most
cognitive
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:04, chris peck wrote:
Hi Liz
Let's also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be
sent to, and that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send
you to A or B with equal probability based on some quantum coin
flip. But by accident it duplicates
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible
futures in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course,
the version of me in each branch will be
Craig,
It's hard to understand how your view is self consistent. You still seem to
be assuming some unstated observer, which you deny, by claiming pattern
recognition, aesthetics, appreciation, participation must somehow precede
any ontological formulation. These are all aspects of how mind
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:21:15 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Sure, but there is a difference between restoring damaged parts of a
living person's brain and putting parts synthetic brain parts and
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:23:39 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 14:22, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I think you said something like I may have stumble [an explanation],,,
Oh, well that definitely wasn't me, then.
David
It possibly was you but you were
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological
changes which move them? The neurological change is the expression of what
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures
in the MWI - but by the time I
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the
confusion between comp and its assumptions (like John Clark does
sometimes), or perhaps just to allude to the fact
On 24 February 2014 16:01, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:21:15 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but there is a difference between restoring damaged parts of a
living person's
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
To address one of your points.
My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and
adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is
inconsistent with relativity in
On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:56:08 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
It's hard to understand how your view is self consistent. You still seem
to be assuming some unstated observer, which you deny, by claiming pattern
recognition, aesthetics, appreciation, participation must
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
It assumes a RUNNING computer which assumes a flowing time.
Not at all. you can hope that there is a physical universe capable of
running a computation, but a computation is a mathematical, even
arithmetical notion.
The existence of any
On Monday, February 24, 2014 4:03:06 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:23:39 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 14:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you said something like I may have stumble [an explanation],,,
Oh, well that definitely wasn't
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:43:28 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:01, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:21:15 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Thanks Bruno...
As an advocate of a computational reality, I certainly believe that
part of that universe (subsets) is computational minds, though I
suspect we'd disagree about most of the rest
You are welcome, but may be David meant
On 24 February 2014 16:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the confusion
between comp and its assumptions (like
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I agree too. Makes it sound low brow and pop culturish, like some
consumer product for housewives. But that's a good way to
distinguish it from my computational reality.
But please tell us what it is. computational is a technical
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:03:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 15:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:48:09 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edgar
On 24 February 2014 16:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be answering a different question. I thought it was a direct
entailment of your theory that no part of the brain could be substituted
purely functionally without affecting the consciousness of the person
Plenty of people have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your view
of p-time and simultaneity... you just ignore it and play dumb. You still
haven't grasped what it means to be at the same spacetime coordinate...
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:14 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Craig,
This seems crazy to me at least, as it seems to assume that reality was
somehow created so people could appreciate it and participate in it.
To me that seems a few orders of magnitude less likely than e.g. P-time!
I would turn this around and say that humans were created of the same
O Bruno, Bruno!
First you snip my post you respond to so no one can tell that my quote
applied to a very specific example given by Stathis which you snipped out,
and NOT to what your quote implies it referred to.
Second you once again repeat the charge I haven't explained what I mean by
Quentin,
I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and
relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried
repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own
admission) and hasn't succeeded so far
You can't just state an
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:16:26 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You seem to be answering a different question. I thought it was a direct
entailment of your theory that no part of the brain could be
ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and
relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried
repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own
For your pleasure, just a little quote from yourself:
If as you say, the same point in time in relativity just MEANS that two
events are assigned the same time coordinate then the twins are NOT at the
same point in time because the two events of their meeting have different
time coordinates in
Bruno,
As I've stated on many occasions, computational reality is what computes
the actual information states of the observable universe. It is what
computes what science observes and measures, whatever that may be.
Your comp starts with an abstract assumption without any empirical
Bruno,
PS: I have no idea what you are asking in the following question. If you
make it clear I'll try to respond
You did not answer my question about the relation between p-time and
1-person. If I accept an artificial brain, and that clock of that
artigicial brain can be improved, I
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
revert to hot air...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript::
Quentin,
I challenge you to
Yeah yeah... you're a misundestood genius... poor guy.
2014-02-24 18:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
revert to hot air...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
Quentin,
The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true statement
exactly as stated. It's a comment on definitions of terminology another
poster was using, rather than actual theory.
Keep trying my friend, but if that is the best you can do it will take a
very long time!
Edgar
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated with
pasta... My pasta universe starts with the actual observable state of the
universe and works backward. That absolutely ensures that it is correct by
definition even before we might know what all of those actual pastas are
Quentin,
Certainly you clearly CAN'T understand very much of anything, certainly not
my theory. You demonstrate your lack of comprehension by being unable to
even spell misunderstood correctly!
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:53:12 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Yeah yeah...
Yes, you didn't know proper time and coordinate time, and now you're
mastering it... you're the best joke of the internet... you should open a
circus.
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:56 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true
écris donc en français et on en discute...
2014-02-24 18:58 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
Certainly you clearly CAN'T understand very much of anything, certainly
not my theory. You demonstrate your lack of comprehension by being unable
to even spell misunderstood
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated
with pasta... My pasta universe
blablabla... genius.
2014-02-24 19:01 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I prefer the
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:38:40 AM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not reasonable. The question posed over and over to me here has
been some variation of this same But if the world didn't work the way that
Quentin,
Even if that were true, and it's not, it doesn't even address your
contention my theory is inconsistent with relativity, which remains
unproved and simply an unfounded opinion on your part.
Perhaps you are trying to change the subject because you can't prove your
original contention?
Quentin,
Again you confirm my contention, and confirm your inability to state any
inconsistency between P-time and relativity whatsoever.
You can blubber forever and that will remain the same...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:05:01 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
blablabla... genius.
On 24 February 2014 17:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it would be possible to have part of your brain removed and not be
aware of any difference also - my point though is, 'so what?' You can be
dead and not know the difference either, presumably.
Are you making some
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
There are many reasons why nuclear power is dead in the water.
I think the main reason is that reactors got too big too fast and their
design has been frozen for nearly half a century. They found a nuclear
reactor
Just first, explain what p-time is supposed to solve in the first place
that relativity doesn't. (if you come back again with the possibility for
the twins to meet up, relativity doesn't need p-time for that, so you
should find a real problem p-time solve that relativity alone can't).
Then answer
On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
Well, I can put hand on heart I have no
On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
Well, I can put hand on heart I have no personal
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not reasonable. The question posed over and over to me
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:21:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
This seems crazy to me at least, as it seems to assume that reality was
somehow created so people could appreciate it and participate in it.
That would be crazy, but no, you are forgetting that nothing that I am
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and
then we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid
intersection. Is that
On 24 February 2014 19:02, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is
2014-02-24 20:24 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014
On Monday, February 24, 2014 7:55:35 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 19:02, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No,
On 24 February 2014 16:31, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological
changes which
On 24 February 2014 20:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
MHO the stage for bickering comes after a lot of this goes down.
Prematurally, you've got a virtual cast iron guar antee, however long this
runs, it's endings will the familiar territory, in line with all the other
instances you participated
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:11:47 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:24 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
The point Edgar seems to be missing vis-a-vis block universes is that,
whether correct or not, they explain our experience of time. Otherwise
Einstein, Weyl, Minkowski etc would have dismissed the idea of space-time
out of hand, instead of embracing it as a replacement for the Newtonian
paradigm
Solar cells are getting cheaper and easier to use (e.g. flexible plastic
ones). It should be possible to stick them anywhere you want, e.g. on
buildings or cars. This would mean at least some solar power could be
harvested using existing infrastructure. As usual the technology is there,
or almost
Bless your noddly appendages.
On 25 February 2014 06:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated
with pasta... My pasta universe starts with the actual observable state
of the universe and works backward. That
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:32:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
How
On 25 February 2014 06:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
My pasta theory conforms to standard scientific method in this respect
while yours does not.
Tch. You've got a sauce.
PS bless your noodly appendages!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
2014-02-24 19:01 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
For some reason my irony meter just exploded.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 25 February 2014 05:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, 24 years later, there has been no improvement in our understanding,
no progress whatsoever in these fundamental issues of consciousness. I
think that I may actually have stumbled on the real improvement, but it's
going to take a long
On 25 February 2014 01:57, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
MWI cannot be falsified in the Popperian sense because all scientific
experiments are necessarily limited to one world. Yet MWI is central to
asking the doctor. But there is no scientific experiment that verifies MWI.
Pasta with meatballs and the meat balls are higher dimensional energy fields
and the tomato sauce is the rolling tide of higgs singlets reacting with all.
-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Feb
On 24 February 2014 07:57, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
About [](A - B) - ([]A - []B), let me ask you a more precise exercise.
Convince yourself that this formula is true in all worlds, of all Kripke
multiverses, with any illumination.
Hint: you might try a reductio ad absurdum.
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
