Le 9 mai 2017 01:17, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit :
On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
> On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <
On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote:
On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote:
Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume
that there is a
On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >:
On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
On 8/05/2017 8:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the
conservation of energy in thermodynamics and entropy, why not take
Boltzmann a
On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You
refer to "internally consistent computations" and "consistent and
hence intelligible 'personal histories'." But what is the measure of
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:42:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> I don't think they need to halt. They need only to go through our
> local state. A priori, the halting computations might have a null
> measure among all computations, so that the global "physical"
> measure might be determined
On 5/8/2017 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How could something non material produces something material?
That's what we keep wondering about computationalism.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> If a proper noun is not the referent of the personal pronouns Bruno
>> Marchal loves to through around with abandon then WHAT IS? When Bruno asks
>> "what city will you see?" who exactly is Bruno asking the
On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote:
On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote:
> Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is
> a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless laws. Until you
> have something like that,
2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
> On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
>
>> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>> Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has
On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >:
On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but
the measure function
Everybody knows that drinking tequila and orange juice are the same in
terms of qualia. Same as drinking rocks.
Most people say things like: "this tequila or this orange juice is very
possibly consistent and particularly full of Plotinus' unnameable truth
upon looking inside the box today."
On 08 May 2017, at 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/05/2017 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic,
according to your theory of consciousness, is
On 08 May 2017, at 07:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/05/2017 2:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote:
On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish"
wrote:
Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has
On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the
conservation of energy in thermodynamics and entropy, why not take
Boltzmann a bit more seriously, and search for these
On 08 May 2017, at 06:50, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
What about an Ensemble (Deutsch and Tegmark), that is also, by
necessity, computationalist in nature.
Why? Most ensemble are typically not computable object. Computability
is an enormous restriction on the notion of set.
On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker"
wrote:
On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker"
wrote:
But that's what
On 07 May 2017, at 19:14, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote:
On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker"
wrote:
On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May
On 07 May 2017, at 23:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal
pronouns are ambiguous in a world that contains people duplicating
machines because the referent will always be
On 07 May 2017, at 22:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2017 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker"
wrote:
On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno
On 07 May 2017, at 22:32, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2017 6:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic,
according to your theory of consciousness, is
On 07 May 2017, at 06:04, Kip Ingram wrote:
The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will
before seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of
new information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of
randomness, but rather the injection of
2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
>
>> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <
On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote:
Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that
there is a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless
laws. Until you have something like that, you cannot define consistent
continuations.
But I'm afraid that's implied by
2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
>
>> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <
On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >:
On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
>
>> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <
On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >:
On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett"
On 8 May 2017 7:26 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote:
On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m.,
2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett :
> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <
> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m.,
On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote:
On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker"
On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote:
On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <
meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker"
32 matches
Mail list logo