On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all
the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods...
Is this true? And do
On 27 October 2014 15:09, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Since when is general relativity, wrong? What news did I miss?
It's (generally :-) assumed to break down in the vicinity of (what would
otherwise be) singularities.
On 25 October 2014 05:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
the only one giving ambiguity is you
In a world where matter duplication machines exist it is not clear who is
giving ambiguity; in such a world
On 25 October 2014 12:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:38:48PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Bruno's argument shows that they must be a part of the phenomenal
It would be nice if Mr Clark would EITHER stop joining in with discussions
just to say that he doesn't care about comp, OR state what he agrees or
disagrees with in Bruno's stated argument.
Just saying it's obviously wrong doesn't really cut it. So far the only
real (non-sarcastic,
On 27 October 2014 07:33, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Just go reread the thread Re: For John Clark october 2013... or read the
last 5 years of John Clark Bullshit... for someone who don't give a damn
about comp, that someone spent years of his own life answering bullshit
about
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:20:59PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 12:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So you know for certainty that the arrival times of electrons in a
Geiger counter from a beta decay source is computable. How?
This point was originally about
I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian nature of
comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this universe are not
found in the negative in other universes of the multiverse. I referred to
this as the GWI of reality and suggested that it might be consistent with
Ok Hawkings old sales pitch! Thanks.
It's (generally :-) assumed
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
On 26 Oct 2014, at 16:47, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
And now in physics we have this-
http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/news2/science/14152-when-parallel-worlds-collide-quantum-mechanics-is-born
MWI worlds interact
Then QM is wrong. Weinberg but also Plaga (on this list)
On 27 Oct 2014, at 03:09, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Since when is general relativity, wrong? What news did I miss?
Quantum Mechanics. I guess. But GR per se seems not consistent by
itself. A bit like Newton physics, it seems it divides by zero, and
Hi Peter,
You are replying to my post (I am Bruno, not Brent, although I am open
that we are all the same person, it is better to keep the name right
for helping in future references)
On 26 Oct 2014, at 17:52, Peter Sas wrote:
Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if
On 26 Oct 2014, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Like I explained to you more than once, Everett was interested in
predictions but you are interested in consciousness,
That is not relevant for the point you made.
On 27 Oct 2014, at 12:04, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:20:59PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 12:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
So you know for certainty that the arrival times of electrons in a
Geiger counter from a beta decay source is
On 27 Oct 2014, at 13:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian
nature of comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this
universe are not found in the negative in other universes of the
multiverse.
It is like the quantum white
On 27 Oct 2014, at 10:57, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well
as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Oct 2014, at 13:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian nature of
comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this universe are not
found in the
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can never see the
back of your own head.
Obviously if it expands forever you could never see the back of your
head, and our universe is not only expanding
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Okay, I don't see how quantum mechanics can be wrong either? It was a fresh
new paper that came out and it didn't seem to go against him WY such just a
subtle interpretation difference. For me, philosophically, the validity of the
science, is our ability to do
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Very well Prof. Marchal, but my take away from both general and special
relativity is this: Traveling the fastest we can go, that's the same physical
effect as falling down a deep gravity hole. In both cases relatively speaking
time slows down. Q him seems kind of
On 10/27/2014 2:57 AM, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical,
despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all the gods of
On 10/27/2014 3:38 AM, LizR wrote:
It would be nice if Mr Clark would EITHER stop joining in with discussions just to say
that he doesn't care about comp, OR state what he agrees or disagrees with in Bruno's
stated argument.
Just saying it's obviously wrong doesn't really cut it. So far the
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:53:36 PM UTC, JohnM wrote:
Brent, these guys are SO smart! They even knew how to convert infinity
into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff.
you made a good insight here, so my thanks that you shared it.
Reading the fuller laid down by
On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then that is what I
show being still possible thanks to the presence of an arithmetical quantization in
arithmetic, at the place we need the probabilities.
I don't recall you having
Hi Brent,
I recall reading a few papers that discussed this question. I think that
one can only obtain Hermiticity http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hermitian
with complex valued amplitudes. Self-adjointness does not obtain very
easily
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb
I don't have time to watch the video, but the title seems a bit weird. How
can infinity have a span (span implies finitude, surely?)
With infinity it's more span, span, span, span, span, span, span, span ...
span, wonderful span!
Maybe someone can summarise for me?
--
You received this message
Dinsdale!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
I don't have time to watch the video, but the title seems a bit weird. How can
infinity have a span
Dear Zibsey,
what a response to my short-cut exuberance in my 'agnosticism'!
Reminds me Rostand's tirade by Cyrano to the vicompt's brief Sir, your
nose is big..
I read it with gusto and - as usual - don't want to argue in detail.
I accept it as an addage to my ideas which I never want to get
On 28 October 2014 09:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Dinsdale!
Now you're just parroting...
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
That! My friend is an ex-parrot. I didn't come here for an argument. Yes you
did!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 04:11 PM
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
div
On 28 October 2014 10:18, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
That! My friend is an ex-parrot. I didn't come here for an argument. Yes
you did!
This could go on forever.. maybe we've discovered the span of
infinity
--
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 October 2014 10:18, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
That! My friend is an ex-parrot. I didn't come here
On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or
something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it
will contain infinities even in a
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can
never see the back of your own head.
Obviously if it expands forever you
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Nobody spans the Spanish Inquistion!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 04:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
div
On 28 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/27/2014 2:57 AM, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:38 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
So far the only real (non-sarcastic, non-insult-based) objection I've
heard comes down to a semantic quibble to do with redefining our concept of
an individual person.
The entire point of Bruno's proof and all of his bizarre
My simple-minded view of MWI is that it is deterministic and if it is true
then my consciousness is an illusion, period
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:38 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
So far the only real
On 28 Oct 2014, at 1:10 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't make a single one up, they were what Wikipedia or Google though they
most likely meant. For example, Wikipedia lists 27 possible means of comp
and not one of them has anything to do with intelligence or
39 matches
Mail list logo
