SV: Civilization-level quantum suicide

Now, Mark Buda is either sarcastic or mad. I think he is pulling your leg here Bruno. -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 16 juli 2010 16:06 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne:

reality, a non-computable fractal ?

This looks interesting. Has it been noticed here? The Invariant Set Hypothesis: A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity Authors: T.N.Palmer http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Palmer_T/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 5 Dec 2008 (v1

SV: Smolin's View of Time

How does this compare with Einstein´s discovery that there is no moment that is the same NOW for everyone? LN -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] För Kim Jones Skickat: den 2 januari 2009 04:01 Till: Everything List

SV: Little test

I got this and the others you mentioned. LN _ Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 8 april 2008 12:13 Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ämne: Little test Hi, Sorry but this is just a little test. I don't get any message from the everything-list

SV: Neuroquantology

If it had not been first of april that is... _ Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Michael Rosefield Skickat: den 1 april 2008 21:30 Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ämne: Re: Neuroquantology http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/01/poltergeists-and-qua.html I think that answers

assumptions

I think you are only discussing the meaning of the starting assumption here. Have you grasp the whole 8-steps argument? If I'm wrong or unclear just tell me where and let us discuss where the precise problems are. Please keep in mind that I am open to the idea that the physics extracted from

[no subject]

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Fr=E5n: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F=F6r Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 20 februari 2008 15:21 Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =C4mne: Re: UDA paper It arises from the fact that my classical state is duplicable... And of course your quantumstate is

SV: Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

Bruno says: ...the notion of computability is absolute. David Deutsch says: We see around us a computable universe; that is to say, of all possible mathematical objects and relationships, only an infinitesimal proportion are ever instantiated in the relationships of physical objects and

SV: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit : Please, do not tell me that your theories are as well applicable to faith-items! Next time sopmebody will calculate the enthalpy of the resurrection. Frank Tipler calculated the probability of the resurrection in his last book The Physics of

SV: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 13 augusti 2007 16:36 Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ämne: Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences I don't think Church thesis can be grasped conceptually without the

SV: Pedagogy question (was: out-of-line)

Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Concerning the math, do you know the book by Torkel Franzen on the uses and misuses of Godel theorems? Despite some big mistake I will talk about, it is a quite excellent book which I would recommend I have read this book and would very much want to

SV: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Brent Meeker Skickat: den 11 oktober 2006 06:12 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;) David Nyman wrote:

SV: Maudlin's argument

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 7 oktober 2006 14:50 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Maudlin's argument Le 07-oct.-06, à 11:37, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: It exist a

SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, but because their belief in nature is shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith). Bruno That is the most absurd statement so far

SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

: An alternative to a timless Platonia Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, but because their belief in nature is shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith). Bruno

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Brent Meeker Skickat: den 10 juli 2006 23:04 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary? I'd say the decision to use classical logic is an assumption that

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

I've seen by which a logic or mathematical system could be called wrong is it if it is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and rules of inference allow everything to be a theorem. If this is all that Cooper is talking about, I probably wouldn't have any objection to it--but Lennart Nilsson seemed

SV: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Till: Everything List Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary? Lennart Nilsson wrote: Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic (such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself. Meaning what ? That the formalism might not be giving answers

SV: Only logic is necessary?

- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z Skickat: den 8 juli 2006 22:38 Till: Everything List Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : William S. Cooper says: The absolutist

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 10:08 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: RE: SV: Only logic is necessary? Lennart Nilsson wrote: No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean outside a real biological setting. Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent

SV: Only logic is necessary?

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:10 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Numbers per se are what make If being able to count an evolutionary

SV: Only Existence is necessary?

I really think that we should infer both the substantial world and the numerical world from the middleground so to speak, from our observations. -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:36

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

2006 16:11 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary? Le 06-juil.-06, à 21:49, Lennart Nilsson a écrit : Bruno; According to Cooper classical analysis is plain bad biology, ? and not a matter of subjective judgement or philosophical preferens

SV: Only logic is necessary?

with trying to find a fault in your argument J Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 6 juli 2006 11:53 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Le 05-juil.-06, à 15:55, Lennart

Only logic is necessary?

William S. Cooper says: The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic is completely sound everywhere and for everyone, no exceptions! For absolutist logicians a logical truth is regarded as true in all possible worlds, making logical laws

SV: Only logic is necessary?

' into such - much more sophisticated worlds and may become there their stupid bumsG with their memory-experience-logic luggage. John M --- Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William S. Cooper says: The absolutist outlook has it that if a logic is valid at all it is valid period. A sound logic

SV: Do prime numbers have free will?

of universes as well. Lennart Nilsson To deal with these infinite cases, we need to do something like thinking in terms of densities rather than total populations. A suitable density-measure can be finite even if the total population is infinite. It is important to note that we to use some kind of density

choice and the quantum

What on earth does the following footnote mean? Are we back to consciousness where the quantumbuck stops? /LN Understanding Deutsch's Probability in a Deterministic Multiverse by Hilary Greaves Footnote 16 The following objection is sometimes raised against the decision-theoretic approach:

Memory-prediction framework

Thoughts on the Memory-prediction framework in explaining intelligence anyone? Book: Jeff Hawkins On Intelligence

Has math landed?

Logician Bruno Marchal ended an email like this Sep 2002 "PS I have found a way to explain with knot theory what "logic" is,as a branch of math, by comparing propositions with knots, proofs withcontinuous deformation, and semantics with knot's invariants. As I saidbefore one of the

Deutsch on SSA

Dear Russel Do you have any comment to this comment by Deutsch on another list about these matters? Regards Lennart - Original Message - From: David Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 3:07 PM Subject: Re: The Turing Principle and the SSA On

Fw: Something for Platonists

- Original Message - From: Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:14 AM Subject: Something for Platonists Here is something from David Deutsch for Platonists to contemplate...I think LN We see around us a computable universe

Not allowed

I have not recieved any mail fom this list for some days. Is it because it is not allowed by Quantum Constructor Theory? :-)

Re: Am I a token or a type?

+0200 30/07/2002, Lennart Nilsson wrote: How can an abstraction be felt? This is not an easy question. Obviously, the more general question How can anything be felt? is not easy too. A related hard question is How can an abstraction feel?. My (short) answer was that from the many-philosophy

real and virtual

Title: Re: being inside a universe I have been trying to comprehend the UD-Argument of Brunos, following the links supplied at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3044.html, and I find myself accepting step 1 to 10, but not some of the conclusions. ANY virtual reconstitution and

Re: JOINING posts

My formal education ended back in the beginnings of the seventies with a finished MA in sociology and an invitation to get a doctors degree at the University of Stockholm. But life got in the way. When my wife died two years ago I decided to write a book in order to understand better some of my

Re: Isn't this a good point

and Quantum Physics (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.HO/9911150) - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: Isn't this a good point Lennart Nilsson wrote: I was under

Isn't this a good point

In the Motion Mountain project dse.nl/motionmountain/welcome.html Christoph Schiller defines existence such: (physical) existence is the ability to describe interactions. And furthermore explains this by saying: It is thus pointless to discuss whether a physical concept 'exists' or whether it is

Re: Isn't this a good point

, EINSELECTION, AND THE QUANTUM ORIGINS OF THE CLASSICAL Wojciech Hubert Zurek - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Isn't