Threads like this have no relation with questions about what this list is
about: the ultimate reality.
Well...wait... Why questions like this are discussed here? My guess is that
yes, indeed. This is a question about the ultimate reality. GW is a
question of belief, about where we go, one of the
Hi Richard,
On 01 Apr 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears
to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized
with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each
universe reoccurs is given by
On 02 Apr 2014, at 03:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote:
I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and
now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated...
I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability
measure on a
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research
they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the
belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has
been hijacked by ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.
Saibal
Citeren
On 02 Apr 2014, at 04:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz
apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R
is symmetrical?
Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R)
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi everyone:
I am currently interested in two questions:
Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything
[latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp? Hi Bruno.
If life is inherently self
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
the
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure
sense making and sense
On 01 Apr 2014, at 22:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Logic obeys its own incorrigibility also. Logic cannot be doubted
logically.
I would say that it is the contrary.
Logic + numbers leads to doubts and science only make the doubt
greater, augmenting the possibilities, and freedom degrees.
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only occur in
the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
are
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow
them, and agree...
On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that
the Kripke frame (W,R)
On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are
some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)].
I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not
transitive means that
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which
explains how we come to measure discrete values.
Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz?
,
Say, if we imagine a process of stripping
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:03:13 AM UTC+1, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Threads like this have no relation with questions about what this list is
about: the ultimate reality.
Well...wait... Why questions like this are discussed here? My guess is
that yes, indeed. This is a question about
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which explains how we come to measure
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation
We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with clean.
Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say to 20%.
You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:40:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM
On 3 April 2014 12:17, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with
clean. Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say
to 20%. You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.
Auckland isn't
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction
collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable
statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly,
and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would
say
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 3:05:49 PM UTC+1, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research
they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the
belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has
been
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:31:46 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Yeah I like thorium too. I realise it isn't the universal panacea but
seems like a good bet if handled carefully.
It's a bit off topic but all my life
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:31:46 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
Yes but in general making plans to solve problems that won't show up for
more than 15 years usually turns into a farce, it does so for 2 reasons:
1) The problem you foresee has little relation to the problem you
eventually end up
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction
collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable
statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly,
and we
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly
reasonable statement, because we can't observe
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: 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
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:13 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On 3 April 2014 12:17, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
We still have to possess the
Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
No one is ever going to recover the dispersed Thorium in your garden's
dirt
They could but no one will bother doing anything like that until ores of
much much higher concentrations are used up, and at current consumption
rates that won't happen
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
-Original
35 matches
Mail list logo
