Great video,served up, Bruno. Here is a less elaborate short lecture (5:45) by
Eric Steinhart, and Conways' Game of Life, under-pins, much of his
philosophies. Good explanation of the rule set.
Mitch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouipbDkwHWA
-Original Message-
From: Bruno
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
there a difference between the past and the future and if Many Worlds
is correct then unlike the past there is nothing linear and nothing unique
about Mr.You's future.
Except the disciples of MWI insist that the SWE (without
On 4/14/2015 11:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a
married bachelor.
On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 01:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2015, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It's stubborn, even if an illusion, eh? If you were duplicated, would you be prepared
to kill your duplicate? Who would you kill?
On 4/15/2015 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 08:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb
On 4/15/2015 12:58 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 14:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/13/2015 4:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 00:42, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 4/15/2015 2:00 AM, LizR wrote:
Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated differently in the
early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy isn't as powerful as thought,
but it's still there. I'm not sure what the flatness measurement indicates, in terms of
On 4/15/2015 2:05 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 22:18, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 14 Apr 2015, at 11:24 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia,
2015-04-15 22:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/15/2015 2:05 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 22:18, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 14 Apr 2015, at 11:24 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia, being somehow
On 4/15/2015 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 05:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr.
2015-04-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 11:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/13/2015
On 4/14/2015 11:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On
2015-04-15 20:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 11:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a
married
Getting back to this Bruno quote that Liz threw in:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 7:05 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia, being somehow sharable,
and making physical reality a first person plural reality
So what would happen if everyone died in
On 16 April 2015 at 07:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2015 12:58 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 14:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/13/2015 4:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 00:42, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If you agree that
the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is the same person as the guy in M,
who marries a
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
that's false that theologians (at least some) never say that god can't
do self-contradictory thing.
I think you're right, theologians do say such things. Have you even
wondered why Thomas Jefferson insisted that the new
On 16 Apr 2015, at 6:12 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
For all you know what you believe is logical is not and you're deluded.
Quentin
I daresay, yes.
So, for me this suggests the following questions:
Why bother discussing anything?
How can we ever really have firm
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:42:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 12:58 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 14:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/13/2015 4:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
I believe it's an open question
On 16 April 2015 at 08:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2015 2:05 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 22:18, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 14 Apr 2015, at 11:24 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia, being
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If
you agree that the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is
the same person as the guy in M, who marries a woman in M, are the
same person ... as the
On 4/15/2015 3:37 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
..
Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?
I can image a being who transcend anything
Wow, you can imagine that! I can't do it but you can use your
On 16 April 2015 at 10:33, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Getting back to this Bruno quote that Liz threw in:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 7:05 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia, being somehow
sharable, and making physical reality a
On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno had
discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty
That's hardly what Bruno is claiming. Step 3 is only a small step in a
logical argument.
On 4/15/2015 5:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 05:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
My problem with any view based on
On 16 April 2015 at 14:44, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical
sophistication.
A rigorous philosophical
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Le 16 avr. 2015 01:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 4/15/2015 3:37 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?
I can image a being who transcend anything
Wow, you can imagine
On 15 April 2015 at 00:11, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
John, here is a grammatical explanation of why God is referred to as He:
Why Does the Quran Refer to Allah as “He”?
by Nouman Ali Khan
On 15 April 2015 at 00:11, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
A real messenger/prophet/interpreter does not ask for any personal
benefit or remuneration. The pretenders seek worldly benefits.
Surely just being viewed as the head of a religion - a true prophet - IS
a worldly benefit?
On 16 April 2015 at 12:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a
écrit :
On 16 April 2015 at 12:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2015 5:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 05:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
My problem with any view based on
On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Certainly some theories of consciousness might not allow copying, but
that cannot be a logical
On 15 April 2015 at 04:39, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Hi Liz,
Ok. I have an idea about that, it is probably not original. Tell me what
you think:
The universe was not created. All possible states just exist. The moment
of the big bang is one of the many possible states.
On 4/15/2015 5:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person, my consciousness
changes from moment to moment with changing thoughts and external stimuli, but I
remain the same person.
On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:; wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If
you agree that the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is the
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Right. Like AI's in separate but identical worlds.
Don't you then run into the problem of the identity of indiscernibles?
Yes exactly, that idea of Leibniz has proved to be amazingly useful. If you
exchanged the position
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by
philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific observation by
philosophy, but one can certainly enter a philosophical discussion of the
meaning
On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com a écrit :
LizR wrote:
In Bruno's COMP 2013 paper he says
The notion of the first person, or the conscious knower, admits the
simplest possible definition: it is provided by access to basic
memories. Consciousness, despite its non-definability, facilitates
the train of reasoning in
On 15 April 2015 at 04:36, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If I commit suicide the illusion of persisting through time is
destroyed.
Whenever somebody says X is an illusion the first question that should be
asked
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person, my
consciousness changes from moment to moment with changing thoughts and
external stimuli, but I remain the same person. Can two spatially
distinct consciousnesses
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 5:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person,
my consciousness changes from moment to moment with changing
thoughts and external stimuli, but I remain
In Bruno's COMP 2013 paper he says
The notion of the first person, or the conscious knower, admits the
simplest possible definition: it is provided by access to basic memories.
Consciousness, despite its non-definability, facilitates the train of
reasoning in humans; but we justifiably might
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 14:44, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Le 16 avr. 2015 00:18, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au a écrit :
On 16 Apr 2015, at 6:12 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
For all you know what you believe is logical is not and you're deluded.
Quentin
I daresay, yes.
So, for me this suggests the following questions:
On 4/15/2015 5:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 00:11, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
mailto:samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
A real messenger/prophet/interpreter does not ask for any personal
benefit or
remuneration. The pretenders seek worldly benefits.
Surely
On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:
johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno
had discovered something new under
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical
sophistication.
A rigorous philosophical analysis usually starts with a definition,
I disagree. Philosophical discussion
LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno
had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty
That's hardly what Bruno is claiming.
I think this is probably the relevant passage from the COMP (2013) paper
Those two “arithmetical interpretations” of the dual Aristotle–Plotinus
notions of matter inherit also the G/G* split between communicable (or
provable) and true. Both lead to arithmetical quantisations. We suggest
that
On 4/15/2015 9:02 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
there a difference between the past and the future and if Many
Worlds is
correct then unlike the past there is nothing linear and nothing unique
On 15 Apr 2015, at 00:15, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I predict that I will win 1 million dollar by tomorrow. I know my
prediction is correct because this will happen in one of the
branches of the multiverse. Do you agree with this
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a
écrit :
On 15 Apr 2015, at 01:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2015, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It's stubborn, even if an illusion, eh? If you were duplicated,
would you be prepared to kill your duplicate? Who would you kill?
It can be shown that, indeed, killing
On 15 Apr 2015, at 05:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
a écrit :
Certainly some
On 15 Apr 2015, at 08:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, Stathis
2015-04-15 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 08:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/13/2015
2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a
married bachelor.
Yes it can.. that's the whole point of what is a miracle and God. God is
not bound to logic, what
2015-04-15 9:35 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 00:15, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I predict that I will win 1 million dollar by tomorrow. I know my
prediction is correct because this will happen in one
On 14 April 2015 at 14:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/13/2015 4:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 00:42, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The expansion of the wave function in the einselected basis
That's rather mind-boggling - GOL rather than GOD?
On 15 April 2015 at 20:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi,
Here is a wonderful video showing an emulation of the game of life,
programmed in the game of life. It illustrates well the notion of
emulation. In fact the program is
Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated
differently in the early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy
isn't as powerful as thought, but it's still there. I'm not sure what the
flatness measurement indicates, in terms of global
deceleration-vs-acceleration. Is
On 15 Apr 2015, at 09:26, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 08:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-14 18:40
On 14 April 2015 at 22:18, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 14 Apr 2015, at 11:24 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia, being somehow
sharable, and making physical reality a first person plural reality
So what would happen if
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But what would it mean to duplicate consciousness. It doesn't have a
location in spacetime, so any two instances will be identical and hence
only one by Leibniz's identity of indiscernables.
Yes, it should be spelt out what
2015-04-15 12:23 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But what would it mean to duplicate consciousness. It doesn't have a
location in spacetime, so any two instances will be identical and hence
only one by
Hi,
Here is a wonderful video showing an emulation of the game of life,
programmed in the game of life. It illustrates well the notion of
emulation. In fact the program is supposed to emulate itself, so there
is a nice inception effect, also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
LizR wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 14:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
I think Bruno's answer to this is that for every such experiment
there are arbitrarily many threads of the UD going throught at
experiment and this provides the order 1/epsilon ensemble. But this
somewhat
70 matches
Mail list logo
