type theory.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpc
f consciousness or observerhood, since the continuous/discrete
distinction should not be controversial to anyone, and a lot in known
mathematically about it.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 25311
riments directly testing the principle of
equivalence. A finding of a departure from it would be very big news!
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visit
on sign is dropped, since it is obvious from the way
the equation is written.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@
of a proof of that contention,
> which I may get around to writing up sooner or later..
>
I would be very interested in that.
--
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principa
nes are shifted by the same amount. But the lines
are recognisable by the patterns - a bit like a bar code.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:03:48PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 3:53:28 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:40:12 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>
>
stance in terms of z factor, which is related to their Doppler
shift, rather than an exlicit distance, as the latter vlaue is not
model independent.
Cheers
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:18:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 11:53 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:26:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > > On 5/12/2017 3:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > > I think that is enough to get
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kin
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:11:11PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 3/12/2017 9:03 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> > The point being that the uncertainty in the coin's initial position is
> > itself due to the amplification of quantum uncertainty by classical
> > chaos.
>
&
d surface, rather than the
tosser's hand, which is why that is usually insisted upon.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco.
hing" list. Anyway, as I stated, this will be an
> exception. Try being tolerant. AG
In particular, ensemble theories of everything. For an introduction,
see my book "Theory of Nothing", or Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".
But other "theories of everything"
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:13PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
> > > <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
&
ently to everybody
else on this list, and prevent these sorts of stupid confusions.
Cheers
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Resea
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> > But not all measurements are measurements of the position of
> > something. What about measuring the voltage of a circuit using an A->D
> > converter?
>
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:54:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > > I said "one of the strongest"! I know that you want to define QM from the
>
elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss, apparently. *
>
As Brent explained, if the universe is infinite in extent at t=0, it
remains infinite in extent at finite times.
--
Dr Russell Standish
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept
> > > of
entirely
requires solving the preferred basis problem without reference to an
observer or observation.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior
l a gap between 100% code coverage, and
correctly implementing the requirements...
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fe
--
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
elevant to phenomenology.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University ht
y doing here?
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpc
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 09:56:05AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 9/09/2017 9:36 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 05:08:39PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>OK, proper time is taken from SR and applied only locally, so the
> >>concept is not r
assumptions. So far, they're not nonsense.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston Univ
ence of the
latter. Computationalism is the position that it is both necessary and
sufficient, of course.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Rese
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:44:02PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that codings are also entirely
> >>arbitrary, that every possib
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:39:07PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>I find the discussion in your book rather cursory, unless I have not
> >>located the r
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 5/09/2017 2:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:58:57AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>I have no problems with the assumption that all forms of data can be
> >>represented by bi
of time and projection postulates in the
book, as well as the evolutionary framework within which it
sits. Obviously, we would like a more detailed account of observation
at some point, but that seems like a good start.
--
Dr Russell
eory is
dualist or not. It's kind of irrelevant. (Or maybe that should be
irrelephant - cf story of the blind men that I quote at the end of my book).
--
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High
m was property
dualism, not Decartes' substance dualism). I actually put this to
David on the one and only lunch meeting I had with him, and he
admitted his classification was for a specific purpose (which he
didn't go into), and probably not at all universal.
--
----
putations possible
with a quantum computer, and that a working 512 qubit quantum computer
will be strong empirical evidence that we live in a robust universe anyway.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (
the bit strings is the information that one knows? How
> does a bitstring know
> a different bitstring?
>
Information is in the constraints. If I know something or other, then
this entails that some bitstrings are compatible with my existence,
and others are not.
--
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:28:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer
> >moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a
> >finite number
, but think are plausible).
Cheers
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 04:55:02AM +1000, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:03:24PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On 6/07/2017 5:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:18:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:03:24PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 6/07/2017 5:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:18:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>On 6/07/2017 2:33 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>Establishing linearity is key.
e task is going to be quite so easy...
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, King
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:04:13PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 11/07/2017 2:12 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >You're still missing the point. The quantum reality is a 1p thing, it
> >is the observed phenomenal physics. Substrate independence is a 3p
> >thing, and may
to
support universal computation.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:56:27AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 7/07/2017 10:40 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 10:22:40PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> >>No, position and momentum are dual in the sense I defined. The
> >>observabl
e conventional term is
"complementary".
Observing S=X+P does not imply simultaneously observing X and P.
Prove that I can't observe S, or provide a reference to someone doing
so. It appears rather crucial to your critique.
--
-------
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:18:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 6/07/2017 2:33 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >Establishing linearity is key.
>
> Yes, and you haven't made progress with that.
All I ask is to give me some more time on this. I have some further
ideas in this r
Sorry for having gone dark, although maybe you relished the
respite. I've been travelling, and its not been all that convenient to
check and respond to emails.
On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 02:56:58PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 1/07/2017 11:18 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >To summa
contact with
regular QM).
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University ht
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:26:50AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 29/06/2017 5:36 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:19:40PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>On 28/06/2017 2:26 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:09:4
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:19:40PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 28/06/2017 2:26 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:09:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>On 27/06/2017 10:21 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>No, you are just dealing wit
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:09:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 27/06/2017 10:21 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >No, you are just dealing with a function from whatever set the ψ and ψ_α
> >are drawn from to that same set. There's never been an assumption that
> >ψ are
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 08:52:15AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 26/06/2017 3:57 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:50:45AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>That is not what is normally meant by the '+' symbol. You have
> >>simply defined a conj
ve in a Multiverse, and that observer moments are
drawn from a much more general measure than classical probability
theory allows.
I still claim that my argument needs to looked at seriously on its own
terms, rather than trying to interpret it in terms of other failed
attempts (eg branch co
station of physical supervenience. My
argument for that goes by the name of the Occam catastrophe.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiti
teresting. I've downloaded it, and added it to my stack.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.c
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:25:07PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 24/06/2017 8:36 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:29:54PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>On 24/06/2017 5:23 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>
> >>OK, it was possibly the
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:29:54PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 24/06/2017 5:23 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> OK, it was possibly the case that you gave arguments earlier in the
> book. But I was going on the basis of the Appendix "Derivation of
> Quantum postulates&quo
overwhelming more likely to occur in the
Multiverse of Everything than Boltzmann brain existences.
--
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 01:09:41PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 24/06/2017 11:20 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >The 3p is what is left after removing all personal baggage of each 1p
> >view point. It is literally the view from nowhere (since location is
> >just such a
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 04:21:09PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 21/06/2017 4:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:15:31PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>On 19/06/2017 10:23 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>I know Scott wouldn'
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:15:31PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 19/06/2017 10:23 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >I know Scott wouldn't go as far as me. For me, all such irreversible
> >processes are related to conscious entities in some way. Whilst
> >agreeing that Geiger
st, so that could be the source of
our disagreement :).
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kin
difference from a
computational complexity point of view. I confess to not understanding
that proof, but it is in Chang et al op. cit.
Cheers
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, H
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so
> >
> > the
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 09:20:29PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> > Random oracle computers appear to be faster for some problems in a
> > similar way, but don't compute anyt
ers appear to be faster for some problems in a
similar way, but don't compute anything a Turing machine can't do.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Vis
m first principles without making any
further measurements, then we don't live in such a superposition. But I
still think that if it requires a measurement (no matter how indirect)
to determine the fact of colour, than we do live in a superposition.
Cheers
--
------
.
Cheers
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcode
t FAPP), in which case the
two histories do not interfere, and there is no quantum interference phenomena.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Se
and the 3p looks more like Everett, with deterministic wave
functions and many worlds.
The incompatibility between relativity and wave function collapse can
be seen as a manifestation of the incommensurate nature of the 1p/3p
distinction.
Cheers
--
-----
you
can leverage that into support for the MWI.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:42:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:>
>
> On 16 May 2017, at 10:20, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>
e consciousness is no
longer supervenient on the original program, but on the
transformation.
I can't help feeling this is telling me something is awry with the
definition of supervenience, rather than of computationalism or materialism.
--
-------
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>
> >>We had extended arguments starting from "Why isn't
> >>t
niversal dovetailer and IMHO the classroom (see the
paper) are counterexamples to that belief.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research
-------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, King
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote:
> On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been
> reluctant to really address the question of physical supervenie
sical
supervenience in his theories.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:42:45AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
>
> HAVEGE periodically dumps entropy into /dev/random, when available. Do you
> know what the consumption-rate of your ALife simulat
without any significant speedup in random number generation. Maybe
it requires a massive workload of parallel scientific computations to
work :).
Anyway, it is a question that I will return to in the next few years -
I now have a completely new implementation of Tierra and the
complexity analysis too
e accurate to say that arithmetic can be induced (maybe
inferred?) from physics, rather than derived as originally claimed.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance C
ch is that all truths are
observer dependent, with some truths being globally applicable to all
observers being the equivalent of ontological truth.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:38:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 4/24/2017 7:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:12:38PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>
> >>On 4/24/2017 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >&g
ld be nice to
handle the more usual QM statements where probability is less than
1. Also, it is open whether Z describes exactly Birkhoff and Neumann's
quantum logic, or merely something like it.
Nevertheless an intriguing result.
--
---
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:42:44AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > If we
> >
> > take the usual (mathematical) meaning of computation, then I can p
omputationalism.
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.
utation, and that mathematical
> >platonism is true, but that there is still a primitive physical
> >universe and that any actual computations require a physical
> >substrate -- as JC keeps insisting.
> >
> >No contradiction has been demonstrated.
> &g
using a clock and electron detector
gives a time series that to our best knowledge is random and hence
uncomputable. It is an undeniable physical process that is not a computation.
Back to my pop corn!
--
--------
Dr Russell Sta
here life is hard and medical services are sparse
> people cling to religion and their children often die - so they have
> more children to compensate...and having more children contributes
> to their poverty. All the major religions encourage fertility.
> Religion as a p
nsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For
do when he takes office?
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University ht
n't think Brent was doing that - but maybe Brent can chime
in. 'Nuff said.
Cheers
--
--------
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fel
sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't
see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were ontological.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performan
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >explain the predictive power of physics.
>
> To predict (exactly and in princi
ind
> and matter, and a univocal link between, which, at the level of
> metaphysics or theology becomes as much invalid than an evocation to
> God, which makes no sense in any theory, even theology.
>
>
--
Cheers
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> >&
oking fun of :).
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcode
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:02:49AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> >>Einstein ev
eed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Perfor
ost to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
--------
Dr Russell
hought.
--
----
Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.
201 - 300 of 2126 matches
Mail list logo
