meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained when something
computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why Olympia and the
MG need to be counterfactually correct. But to realize the
counterfactual correctness would mean including within the static record
On 4 May 2015 at 15:57, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning may be a problem, at least in principle. The
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 15:57, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning may be a problem, at
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained when something computationally
equivalent is substituted; which is why Olympia and the MG need to be counterfactually
correct. But to realize the counterfactual correctness
On 5/3/2015 11:09 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 15:57, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning
On 5/3/2015 9:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 15:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/3/2015 8:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:41:54PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
That is what is suggested to be
On 4 May 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:; wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 15:57, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:; wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained when
something computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why
Olympia and the MG need to be counterfactually correct. But to
realize the
On 4 May 2015 at 17:40, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning may be a problem, at least in principle. The usual
answer is
that the
2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained when something
computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why Olympia and the MG
need to be counterfactually
On 4 May 2015 at 18:28, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained when something
computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why Olympia and the MG
need to be
On 4 May 2015 at 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:40, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning may be a problem,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:40, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:40, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
What is the point of two identical quantum states if you don't know which
two are identical? It seems to me that copying at will is what is
required.
We are not talking about a copy by random chance,
2015-05-04 8:49 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 4 May 2015 at 18:28, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained when something
computationally equivalent is substituted; which
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:40, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained
when something computationally equivalent is substituted;
On 4 May 2015 at 17:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
What is the point of two identical quantum states if you don't know which
two are identical? It seems to me that copying at will
On 4 May 2015 at 17:07, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:40, Stathis
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
What is the point of two identical quantum states if you don't know which
two are identical? It seems
2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 5/3/2015
11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also yes doctor assumes that consciousness is retained
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
What is the point of two
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:07, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce
Kellett wrote:
2015-05-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On
2015-05-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The initial point that we were making was that copying at the quantum level
of substitution is not possible, in principle. Accidental copies in another
universe are not deliberate but
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
For each computation, there exist an infinity of valid
equivalent implementations, they're all computing the same
thing, that class of equivalent implementations is what
realize the conscious moment. For 1st POV, you only
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The initial point that we were making was that copying at the quantum
level
of substitution is not possible, in principle.
2015-05-04 9:31 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
For each computation, there exist an infinity of valid
equivalent implementations, they're all computing the same
thing, that class of equivalent implementations is
On 4 May 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:07, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:31 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
For each computation, there exist an infinity of valid
equivalent implementations, they're all
2015-05-04 9:48 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:07, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:31 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
For each computation, there exist an infinity of
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
The film is still physical, still running through a physical
projector, so the physical supervenience thesis is not affected by
the MGA. You have merely removed one physical substrate and
2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
The film is still physical, still running through a physical
projector, so the physical supervenience thesis is not affected by
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi Telmo,
I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting.
Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure.
Steinhart, said he had some
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even
mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that
current
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
The film is still physical, still running through
2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
2015-05-04 10:27 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce
Interesting idea:
http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
Step 3 just shows that duplication leads to first person uncertainty, the
same thing Everett showed (although there is some argument over how, or if,
this works in cases where the probability is represented by a real number).
The duplication can be in any of the available types of multiverse, or
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
But then again... you reject step 0, so why bother saying
because of that step N is invalid... well ok, if step 0 is
invalid, any further deduction from
On 4 May 2015 at 19:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
What is the point of two identical quantum states if you don't know which
two are identical? It seems to me that copying at
That looks like a game I wouldn't play even if I played computer games...!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
2015-05-04 12:04 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
But then again... you reject step 0, so why bother saying
because of that step N is
2015-05-04 12:53 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-04 12:04 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
But then again... you reject step
On 4 May 2015 at 06:12, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
My external hard drive is named The Book of Sand :)
Ooh!!
Mine is Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius !
I also constructed a cryptic crossword themed around Borges (insofar as
cryptic crosswords can be themed). For your possible
By the way you might particularly like 29 across :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to
Yes, very. I haven't read the paper yet but I hope when they say you pay
for votes that isn't meaning a plutocracy, but from some share of equally
distributed voting capital or something similar? So people can spend
their voting power on whatever they're concerned about?
On 4 May 2015 at 20:50,
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number
26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the
materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems
unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not
On 4 May 2015 at 17:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The initial point that we were making was that copying at the quantum
level
of substitution is not possible, in
On 4 May 2015 at 17:55, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Sure, it's possible that the atoms all move, probably more likely than
my Andromeda example, but less likely than that I be created in a
galaxy far, far beyond Andromeda. In any case, if I am copied there is
a chance that
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, very. I haven't read the paper yet but I hope when they say you pay
for votes that isn't meaning a plutocracy, but from some share of equally
distributed voting capital or something similar? So people can spend
their voting
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last,
number 26th, the last one.
Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting
there, it's a small
Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even
mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that
current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong.
So what?
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of Sims
and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in a way,
it seems too simple, Rather than life being an illusion, let us conceive that
its the result of a great program running and producing us as
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even
mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that
current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong.
So what?
No
John Clark, you have often praised the movie The Prestige on this list.
I am curious to know, how did you interpret the line:
Would I be the man in the box or the prestige? (Spoken/Thought by the
magician Robert Angier, prior to duplicating himself to two locations: a
box filled with water and on
On 04 May 2015, at 01:39, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The physical hardware makes possible to incarnate or implement
universal numbers relatively to us,
If that's true then physical reality can do something that would
be impossible
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:03:50 PM UTC+2, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Alberto G. Corona agoc...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even
mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just
On 03 May 2015, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Dennis Ochei
do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmmm... I don't think Godel's result implies that mathematical
truth isn't out there in Platonia
Oh mathematical truth is out there in Platonia alright, but so is
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
John Clark, you have often praised the movie The Prestige on this
list. I am curious to know, how did you interpret the line:
Would I be the man in the box or the prestige?
I would answer yes.
John K Clark
--
You
On 5/4/2015 12:31 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 5/4/2015 12:44 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:31 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
For each computation, there exist an infinity of valid
equivalent
On 5/4/2015 12:46 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:07, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Kellett
On 5/4/2015 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
2015-05-04 19:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/4/2015 12:31 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The initial
On 5/4/2015 1:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Of course believing in the supernatural is
On 03 May 2015, at 23:41, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Err God created the natural numbers is a rather meaningless
proposition in my mind. What does that even mean? God just decided
that there were such things as numbers? The existence of numbers
depends on the whim of God?
It was a parody of a
On 5/4/2015 1:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Interesting idea:
http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/
I see it's claimed to be more efficient and I can certainly see that. It will allow the
Koch brothers to directly buy the laws they want without having to buy Congressmen.
The
On 04 May 2015, at 04:08, LizR wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 09:41, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Err God created the natural numbers is a rather meaningless
proposition in my mind. What does that even mean? God just decided
that there were such things as numbers? The existence of
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of
Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in
a way, it seems too simple, Rather than life
On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last,
number 26th, the last one.
Ah there you are! And you are not the
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If you take the theory of consciousness that says it is just a stream of
experiences which are related by some internal similarities, then it's
impossible that you find yourself on some distant planet so long as there's
the much
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2015 12:31 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bhkell...@optusnet.com.au');:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 17:14,
On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that
even mean? If, for example, ghosts were
On 04 May 2015, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning may be a problem, at least in principle. The usual
answer is
that the
Yes to what? It wasn't a yes or no question.
Jason
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 11:49 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
John Clark, you have often praised the movie The Prestige on this
list. I am curious to
Stathis, in a tv interview on Closer To the Truth from a few years ago,
Steinhart said that this would be an improved version of you, but no memories
passing. So a new and better you, with a longer life, and more wealth would
surpass this life, this universe, from its inception, with no
On 5 May 2015 at 12:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the
On 5/4/2015 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 12:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
We have no evidence that a quantum level of duplication is
necessary but, likewise, we have no evidence that it is not.
Nonsense, we have a
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
A classical computer can emulate a quantum computer, even if possibly
with a necessary slow down. So the UD, even if written in LISP, and
executed by a LISP interpreter, itself computed by some extendible
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 09:08:13PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Given the magnitude of the blunder made in step 3 and the fact that it
never even seems to have occurred to Bruno that in a proof that claims so
say something
On 5/4/2015 8:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
A classical computer can emulate a quantum computer, even if possibly with a
necessary slow down. So the UD, even if written in LISP, and executed by a LISP
interpreter,
On Mon, May 4, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Given the magnitude of the blunder made in step 3 and the fact that it
never even seems to have occurred to Bruno that in a proof that claims so
say something about the nature of personal identity it might be a good idea
to
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
A quantum computer is not the issue here. I know that any UTM can
perform any calculation doable of a quantum computer, although the
quantum computer might make a rather poor desk calculator
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is
quantum,
then no-cloning may be a problem, at least in principle. The usual
On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 14:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I've mentioned occasionally that if the substitution level is quantum,
then no-cloning may be a
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
We have no evidence that a quantum level of duplication is necessary
but, likewise, we have no evidence that it is not.
Nonsense, we have a ASTRONOMICAL amount of evidence that is not necessary!
Your quantum
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 8:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We have evidence of the sort you mention that quantum superpositions
of the type need for a quantum computer decohere rapidly in the brain
environment. But decoherence affects only superpositions in non-robust
bases. You could have
On 5 May 2015 at 16:15, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 8:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We have evidence of the sort you mention that quantum superpositions of
the type need for a quantum computer decohere rapidly in the brain
environment. But
On 5/4/2015 9:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 16:15, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 8:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We have evidence of the sort you mention that quantum
superpositions of
Le 5 mai 2015 01:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 5/4/2015 3:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 5 mai 2015 00:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 5/4/2015 11:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
