On 25 Mar 2014, at 9:23 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not a number! I am a free man!
(Sorry...)
OK - I've seen The Elephant Man too... ( took me all day to recognise your
twisted quote source!)
Kim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
2014-03-24 23:27 GMT+01:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 25 March 2014 11:03, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-24 22:00 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor
to gather info from the substitution
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:35:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 16:25, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:53 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM
On 25 March 2014 19:26, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 9:23 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not a number! I am a free man!
(Sorry...)
OK - I've seen The Elephant Man too... ( took me all day to recognise
your twisted quote source!)
It was from
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:48:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its
I agree that the MUH's predictions are a bit vague, there's the
continuing to find maths useful prediction and something about finding
ourselves in the most generic universe compatible with our existence, which
is not exactly easy to measure. But I guess this is going to be the case
for something
2014-03-25 1:46 GMT+01:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
He suggests quantum computers can't be simulated (probably a lot more
slowly) by classical computers. I thought they could?
Then he's wrong, because quantum computers can't compute more than a turing
machine...
Quentin
On 25 March 2014
On Monday, March 24, 2014 9:15:04 PM UTC, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
He gives six evidences.
First, he falls for quantum pseudoscience.
Second, he says that he personally failed to make AI when he tried and
incorrectly implies that difficulty means impossibility.
Third, he brings up the hard
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:56:37 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 9:15:04 PM UTC, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
He gives six evidences.
First, he falls for quantum pseudoscience.
Second, he says that he personally failed to make AI when he tried and
incorrectly
On 25 Mar 2014, at 07:45, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:35:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 16:25, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
How many different methodologies are used in the course of
producing all those definitions?
If science is
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were
On 24 Mar 2014, at 21:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2
Come on, the guy believe in Aristotelian theology, clearly without
knowing it, and he believes that a computer is material, etc. Then his
argument is along the
On 24 Mar 2014, at 23:25, LizR wrote:
On 25 March 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
According to MWI I am not unique for there are many versions of
myself having made different choices and now living different lives.
Therefore I am being cloned all the time. As I
On 25 Mar 2014, at 02:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/24/2014 2:33 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the
doctor to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you
On 25 Mar 2014, at 07:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-03-24 23:27 GMT+01:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 25 March 2014 11:03, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-24 22:00 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking
On 25 Mar 2014, at 01:46, LizR wrote:
He suggests quantum computers can't be simulated (probably a lot
more slowly) by classical computers. I thought they could?
I think he is just unclear.
To be sure a classical computer *can* simulate a quantum computer,
albeit very slowly. But the 1p
On 25 Mar 2014, at 03:02, LizR wrote:
Thank you for the above, for my diary!
On 24 March 2014 20:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
New exercise:
show
(W,R) respects A - []A
iff
R is symmetrical.
OK, symmetrical means for all a and b, a R b implies b R a.
A - []A can (I hope) be
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:24, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the same
thing.
I can see the appeal. If the universe ever
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:57, LizR wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/24/2014 8:24 PM, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that
structure, that its physical
On 25 Mar 2014, at 06:58, chris peck wrote:
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges
Library of Babel. Almost all of them are just lists
If DNA +/- something else is a universal programing language
and we manage to figure out how to operate that...
it might indeed indicate that a new trillion$ technology is looming.
I do think thatit will not be however becuase we figure out
how to program an individual cell. I would suggest
On 25 Mar 2014, at 08:46, LizR wrote:
I agree that the MUH's predictions are a bit vague, there's the
continuing to find maths useful prediction and something about
finding ourselves in the most generic universe compatible with our
existence, which is not exactly easy to measure. But I
On 26 March 2014 06:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:24, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 20:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
How does cloning differ from asking the doctor.
Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory-
just to indicate that this is an important question.
I presume that FPI includes consciousness.
So ti seems that the consciousness level is below the substitution level
and so I suspect that it cannot be transmitted by computer
using only classical particle information.
Richard
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
A possible one world solution (that I believe explains the Born rule) is
Huw Price's time symmetry. But he got evasive when I asked him about the
two slit experiment, imho (and I wasn't convinced by his response on
gravitational collapse either...)
On 26 March 2014 04:01, Bruno Marchal
==
1) The *yes doctor* hypothesis: It is the assumption, in cognitive
science, that it exists a level of description of my parts (whatever I
consider myself to be) such that I would not be aware of any experiential
change in the case where a functionally correct digital substitution is
done
2014-03-25 22:38 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Then it is really a conjecture
It is a definition and by definition if comp is true, that level of
description exists... (it can be as low as you want, as long as it is
finite).
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux
2014-03-25 22:34 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2014-03-25 21:37 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:
On 24 Mar
On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:13:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 25 March 2014 07:36, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2
He could make similar arguments claiming consciousness is not
On 26 March 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 5:13:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 25 March 2014 07:36, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-
is-not-a-computation-2
He could
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness flits
about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
between its distant parts.
I don't think it implies that at all. We
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:42:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 21:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2
Come on, the guy believe in Aristotelian theology, clearly without knowing
it, and he
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness flits
about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
On 26 March 2014 04:35, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 20:32, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Is there anything in particle physics that emulates the processing
capabilities of computers, analog or digital? My question goes below
Chaitin's metabiology. Something that is
On 26 March 2014 07:33, bs...@cornell.edu wrote:
No organism has been found to mover neutrons around atoms.
Humans have, I think ... but only in the last 100 years or so.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does
On 3/25/2014 4:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*/I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a
mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version,
making him either a coward, or an opportunist or both. (Or under
influence, as it is easy to
On 25 March 2014 02:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are living, you already understand what living is.
Are you telling me a potato plant - which is undeniably alive - understands
what living is? If so, this seems to either elevate potatoes to conscious
beings, or else
On 26 March 2014 11:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
between its
On 26 March 2014 13:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits
about from one copy of us to another and that as a
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:23:10 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version,
making him
On 26 March 2014 12:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 13:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1)
On 26 March 2014 14:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another
On 26 March 2014 14:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. Assuming that consciousness
arises somehow from the quantum state of your brain, and assuming that
identical quantum states
Thanks Bruno.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:34:43 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allc...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
2014-03-25 21:37 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.comjavascript:
:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bruno
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 3/25/2014 6:49 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An
On 3/25/2014 6:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:52 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
It is trivially a theorem of COMP, since the existence of such a substitution level is
the COMP axiom itself. If COMP is true, then the substitution level is unknowable
(although it can be honed in upon scientifically).
I have trouble with this. How
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb
On 26 March 2014 15:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:52 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
It is trivially a theorem of COMP, since the existence of such a
substitution level is the COMP axiom itself. If COMP is true, then the
substitution level is unknowable (although it can
On 26 March 2014 14:57, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at all. The conclusion
would still follow in a classical infinite universe.
I don't see that, because you can subdivide classical states indefinitely
(hence the space-time
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually live
forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing it
isn't is significant.
The continuation of an experiential history on some other earth, a history
common to the one that just
On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you
actually live forever.*
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one
thing it isn't is significant.
The continuation of an
On 3/25/2014 8:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 15:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:52 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
It is trivially a theorem of COMP, since the existence of such a
substitution level
is the COMP axiom itself. If
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:33:27 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 26 March 2014 07:33, bs...@cornell.edu javascript: wrote:
No organism has been found to mover neutrons around atoms.
Humans have, I think ... but only in the last 100 years or so.
Sure – but I was thinking of how it could have
On 26 March 2014 16:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 8:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 15:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:52 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
It is trivially a theorem of COMP, since the existence of such a
substitution level is
But that's assuming you don't live forever, so you aren't answering the
other poster's comment.
Sure it does and I'm not assuming that. It makes no difference whether I live
forever or not.
Personally, lets say whilst my widow, mistresses and admirers are all deep in
mourning here, my
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:52:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:52 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
It is trivially a theorem of COMP, since the existence of such a
substitution level is the COMP axiom itself. If COMP is true, then the
substitution level is unknowable (although it can
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb
On 3/25/2014 9:14 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:52:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:52 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
It is trivially a theorem of COMP, since the existence of such a
substitution level
is the COMP axiom itself. If COMP is true, then the
On 26 Mar 2014, at 2:22 pm, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually
live forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing
it isn't is significant.
The continuation of
68 matches
Mail list logo
