Le 9 juil. 2014 01:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 7/8/2014 3:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 8 juil. 2014 22:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 7/8/2014 12:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-08 21:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
2014-07-03 21:51 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him
immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
Fine,
2014-07-02 3:30 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 2 July 2014 11:09, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked ok
with the Sovs. You fear a Pyrrhic victory, I fear capitulation.
Yes,
2014-07-02 17:08 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
statements must be true:
2014-07-02 19:23 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
two statements must
2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:
Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I
suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree?
Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to
those countries,
China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ?
Quentin
-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am
Subject: Re: American Intelligence
:07 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the
US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by
treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to
destroy any north korean ICBM
Le 29 juin 2014 18:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique
1-view
Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer to the
2014-06-25 6:52 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for consciousness, or
for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the argument above,
2014-06-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 25 Jun 2014, at 09:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-06-25 6:52 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote:
On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If primitive matter
You're so full of it... well I won't enter with you again on this debate...
I've waited too much years... so ok.
Byebye
2014-06-20 21:28 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
And in the MWI how will YOU know
2014-06-19 19:25 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we were more
than three to show you that in each case, you were confusing 1-views and
3-views.
2014-06-19 21:10 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI
Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3
distinction.
please do not come again
2014-06-19 21:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the
button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see
spin up
2014-06-19 22:52 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-06-19 21:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the
button
It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the argument
he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he posits that
he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result of the
halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all lookup
, the lookup plays the role of an oracle...
that doesn't mean every lookup is an oracle.
Quentin
Or does it???
On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the
argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp
2014-06-06 16:57 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:
This is fascinating, and I have had such experiences as well.
I was warned against certain areas and I went there anyway. They looked
more grimy, but never had a problem. I fondly remember a poor
Maybe it's when people post directly via googlegroups and not via their
email client ?
2014-06-05 19:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
Why do these posts appear with the From line EveryThing instead of
with the senders name?
Brent
On 6/5/2014 10:04 AM, spudboy100 via
2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 ghib...@gmail.com:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
useless. Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be
organized...all
I was actually
2014-05-27 23:46 GMT+02:00 John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com:
Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph. It reminds me of
the only lawyer joke that I can remember. “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet
deep.” “Because down deep they are not too bad.”
I did learn the Law of
2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:
What about the waste tails he alludes to. I had not known that they had
actually constructed and tested U233 bombs – had always thought it was a
hypothetical problem rather than an actual and
2014-05-20 17:55 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Quentin Anciaux
*Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 PM
*To:* everything-list
2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature
but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of
thorium U233 breeder reactors
2014-05-11 0:58 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 10 May 2014 23:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2014 20:12, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou
2014-05-07 11:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 06 May 2014, at 20:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:07:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2014, at 18:08, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:59:12 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com
2014-05-07 17:20 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 07 May 2014, at 11:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-05-07 11:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 06 May 2014, at 20:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
But you do not ever make a hard prediction Bruno
2014-05-06 17:32 GMT+02:00 John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com:
All 101 of my “predictions” are predictions. I looked up “prediction”.
It means: “Something foretold or predicted”.
You do not predict anything about observed things... your points are about
things in your theory...
What does
2014-05-05 10:30 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make
bitcoins first hope to profit from
2014-05-04 6:24 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 4 May 2014 15:20, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
I have forwarded your query to an expert in Arabic Grammar. Your quote
from Wikipedia is correct. What I can inform you, based on my
understanding, is that the pronoun 'ha' used
2014-04-10 18:28 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults
andd ad-hominem straw man etc, have any effect across internet except to
laugh at you?
Who's the one insulting ? You are certainly blind to your own
It was in one of the climate threads.
Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They
Believe
2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They
Believe Conspiracy Theories
Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of
this fact!
2014-04-04 12:20 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Stathis Papaioannou asks:
So are you saying that if a scientific error is pointed out to you in the
Bible or the Quran you will accept that they are not the word of God?
Honest answer: I don't know.
To quote from the last
2014-04-04 19:05 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24
2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple
or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology.
2014-03-26 2:45 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and
2014-03-26 7:13 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On
2014-03-24 23:27 GMT+01:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 25 March 2014 11:03, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-24 22:00 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor
to gather info from the substitution
2014-03-25 1:46 GMT+01:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
He suggests quantum computers can't be simulated (probably a lot more
slowly) by classical computers. I thought they could?
Then he's wrong, because quantum computers can't compute more than a turing
machine...
Quentin
On 25 March 2014
of my parts at that level. We call that level the substitution level.
== http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
2014-03-25 22:38 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Then it is really a conjecture
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco
2014-03-25 22:38 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Then it is really a conjecture
It is a definition and by definition if comp is true, that level of
description exists... (it can be as low as you want, as long as it is
finite).
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux
2014-03-25 22:34 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2014-03-25 21:37 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:
On 24 Mar
I fear the control they want only exist in your mind... You should
consult... seriously.
You live in a delusional paranoia.
2014-03-21 12:20 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com:
You are picking up the inconsistencies given off by the Greens (red
greens) and the ruling class that funds them.
If we
2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
Google seems to think it's Rich Client Platform but that doesn't sound
quite right
2014-03-21 17:52 GMT+01:00 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
Google
2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote
2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com:
Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all
coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars.
No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace
everything that it can't replace part of it... and it
everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're
not the one who decide things.
-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima
2014-03-19 15:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look
like the general policy recommendations that most of those who see an
urgent need to curb
2014-03-19 15:48 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-03-19 15:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look
like the general
In the present state and the physical transition rules from one state to
another ? if the transition is reversible then from only the current state
you can infer the past state, without it being encoded in the present
state... the current state + transition rule is enough.
Quentin
2014-03-19
To whom are you answering ? It seems it is to Edgar... you should not cite
a message when you want to answer to another one...
Regards,
Quentin
2014-03-19 22:46 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/19/2014 8:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In the present state and the physical
It seems to me that you're just attacking a straw men... it's obvious in
multivalued outcome, that probability doesn't mean only one outcome arise
out of many... so as I said previously if that's what you mean and
attacking us for, it's bad faith on your side.
Quentin
2014-03-13 1:18 GMT+01:00
2014-03-13 11:45 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com:
Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO,
I realize you can't read...
I'm quoting him:
for example ***I*** have no patience with ***the view*** *(not his)* (all
too common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk
since *all
Well if you can store 61 times more energy, that just means there's room
for improvement in the existing batteries... Good news, if nature was able
to do it so can we I hope.
Le 28 févr. 2014 00:50, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 28 February 2014 07:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
*That's nonsense, *
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care
less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who
adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your
2014-02-25 15:02 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
* I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have
time to read it, I will this week.*
Ah so you dismiss things that you havent read then? Impressive!
I don't... I've said it's about the
the best
Chris.
--
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective
2014-02-26 7:28 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
She should have said
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin
down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where
Plenty of people have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your view
of p-time and simultaneity... you just ignore it and play dumb. You still
haven't grasped what it means to be at the same spacetime coordinate...
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:14 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
admission) and hasn't succeeded so far
You can't just state an uniformed opinion and expect anyone to believe
it
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:19:57 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Plenty of people have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your view
of p-time
in their coordinate systems.
if someone need a proof you don't understand s..t.
2014-02-24 18:39 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time
Yeah yeah... you're a misundestood genius... poor guy.
2014-02-24 18:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
revert to hot air...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated with
pasta... My pasta universe starts with the actual observable state of the
universe and works backward. That absolutely ensures that it is correct by
definition even before we might know what all of those actual pastas are
statement
exactly as stated. It's a comment on definitions of terminology another
poster was using, rather than actual theory.
Keep trying my friend, but if that is the best you can do it will take a
very long time!
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:43:20 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
correctly!
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:53:12 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Yeah yeah... you're a misundestood genius... poor guy.
2014-02-24 18:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net:
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
blablabla... genius.
2014-02-24 19:01 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I prefer
with relativity, which remains
unproved and simply an unfounded opinion on your part.
Perhaps you are trying to change the subject because you can't prove your
original contention? That's fine, just man up and admit it...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:59:10 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not
2014-02-24 20:24 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014
frames of any
two observers.
I will be happy to respond further to any questions you may have
Best,
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:45:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Just first, explain what p-time is supposed to solve in the first place
that relativity doesn't. (if you come
you have been unable to back up.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:11:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 23:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net:
Quentin,
Ah, at last a couple of meaningful questions!
Actually relativity does NOT explain how the twins can have
2014-02-25 1:05 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
*As I see from the abstract, he doesn't reject probability calculus,
only the interpretation of it... I'll read the article later. *
Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin
down
are asking the
same two questions again?
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:22:04 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I just did,... your p-time is unnecessary, does not explain anything...
your answer to my post, proves that you don't understand relativity at
all... so I think there is not much
As I see from the abstract, he doesn't reject probability calculus, only
the interpretation of it... I'll read the article later. One reason for
MWI, is to explain the observed QM probabilities... so if you reject that,
MWI is useless IMHO... and your theory is disproven by fact... you never
see
2014-02-21 19:07 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
have to interview all the copies.
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough
Ok, then you simply reject probability usage in both scenario... then
you're consistent unlike John... but if you reject such usage, that's
throwing an axe on MWI explanation... then I can't see how you could still
agree with many world interpretation and reject probability, that's not
2014-02-19 0:22 GMT+01:00 David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that
the
MGA can go through
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case
But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ? I
guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it should
be possible to devise two independent different proof checker... if these
proof checker are smaller than the proof itself (and they should be),
:53:46 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case
2014-02-19 1:21 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/17/2014 10:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-18 3:35 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/17/2014 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 20:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote
2014-02-17 3:55 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/16/2014 6:17 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 01:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well then, facing duplication, would your expectation change to that
of personally experiencing a simultaneous two-valued
2014-02-18 3:35 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/17/2014 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 20:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But it is unambiguous under comp ex hypothesi: i.e. any classically
adequate copy of me is equivalent to me. Under this
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a virtual world
where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in an infinity of
versions in the UD deployment as our own reality... You have no point
proving our own
2014-02-14 19:29 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you
is because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they
will never meet
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in
some
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true
Hi,
You're amazing of patience... but I can predict the end, Edgar won't
acknowledge anything because he is convince he got it all about relativity,
where clearly he doesn't have a clue... he is the perfect example of what
crackpotery is... he thinks that flooding a list with BS, will render the
2014-02-13 23:23 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and
that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that
person does not
2014-02-12 1:17 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did
not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was
2014-02-12 12:17 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in
2014-02-10 6:08 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then
I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.
I think I understand it. Asking the question which will you be in
501 - 600 of 1334 matches
Mail list logo
