Hi Brent,
I agree 99.99% with you here! I only differ in saying that the copy
process is not exact and thus is equivalent to a write.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 4:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
think it's more feasible to try
Hi Brent,
You seem to assume that the read and copy operations are
of something immutable. I submit that there is no 3p invariant at all!
There is only the potential infinity of 'similar' copies.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Brent
Hi,
A resent paper by A.D. Wissner-Gross C.E. Freer suggest that
...intelligent
behavior in general spontaneously emerges from an agent’s effort to ensure
its freedom of action in the future. According to this theory, intelligent
systems move towards those configurations which maximize their
Hi Telmo,
Could it be that, as usual, each of us are using a different dictionary of
definitions of words? What is science, what is religion.. Round and
round we go! ISTM that consciousness per se is completely and totally 1p
and anything that involves reporting on its content is not
No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that
it is doing.
Hi Craig,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:44:31 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Ummm, Craig, you couldn't tell if you
of temporary reactionary
insanity... maybe... or ???
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:44:31 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Ummm, Craig, you couldn't tell if you were switched off and on unless you
had
Ummm, Craig, you couldn't tell if you were switched off and on unless you
had environmental clues that time when by/shit moved around... I think that
you are being a bit specist here. Computers are very much conscious, just
not self-aware in any way relatable to our experience of such.
On Thu,
Hi Bruno,
Interleaving
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:02, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy*
obtains,
it does not give a satisfactory explanation
Hi Bruno,
Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy* obtains,
it does not give a satisfactory explanation of 'shared experience'. It
seems to me that you are right, in so far as, the necessity of such, but I
argue that that alone is insufficient. You might want
Telmo Menezes wrote:
...My understanding is that
it's consistent with the MWI and also with what Russel proposes in his
book: everything happens but each observer only perceives one of the
outcomes.
This seems highly unintuitive to a lot of people, but it seems more
reasonable to me than the idea
Maybe it was never 'really' random. But your point seems to assume the
premise that there is a reason for its actions other than it just does
what it does... What is reason?
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:43:20 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
It's a bit odd to ask why a random event happened; if
Hi Craig,
That is interesting, relating 1st person clocking behavior to random
decay rates. We know that there is a average decay rate and we can
determine it rather accurately - just gather a huge pile
of stochastic decay data and grind it through the statistical algorithm.
The hard part
Hi John,
It seems to me that the very idea of singular causes and singular effects
is deeply flawed. Can you point to a few examples of singular causes? All
examples that I can think of have a line of regress behind them...
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I would not say more fundamental... I would say, equally. We can
not derive one completely from the other.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote
I agree Brent, but that assumes that logic is limited to distributive
lattice structures. We know better!
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:15 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/12/2013 6:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp
Hi Bruno,
Pretty freaking cool post! A few comments...
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 7:27 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: consciousness
On 01 Jul 2011, at 13:23, selva kumar wrote:
Is consciousness causally
Hi Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:24 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is consciousness causally effective ?
Hi Stephen,
On 02 Jul 2011, at 16:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Could you elaborate a bit more on the part where you say
Hi B,
Speaking only for myself, I do believe that consciousness is causally
effective, in the sense that if it did not exist then certain other features of
the world would not exist and that my belief that I (an indicator for inner
subjective experience of “being in the world”) is not just
This is weird! Two people with the same email address talking to each other
or one person talking to himself?!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: B Soroud
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:44 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: consciousness
Yes indeed, the notion of consciousness,
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi Stephen,
On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi Bruno,
Also: Are the box and diamond that Steve Vickers uses here
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~sjv/JVDefenceSlides.pdf the same as yours?
Onward!
Stephen
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/26/2011 12:58
Hi Rex,
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:38 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Brain on Trial
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Why does it seem that there is no motivation to consider the victims
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 28 Jun 2011, at 18:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Genuine Fortuitousness
Interesting paper by Aage Bohr, Nobel prize laureate and son of Niels Bohr:
The Principle Underlying Quantum Mechanics
Hi Colin,
Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy of
your paper?
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Colin Hales
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi,
Hales, C.
Dear Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Hi Stephen,
On 06 Jun 2011, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno, Rex and Friends,
My .002$...
[BM
Dear Bruno,
I agree with your assessment of that Wiki article. In most universities the
prevalent ontological doctrine is “dialectical materialism” and such has no
allowance for any competition in the realm of ideas. I have pointed out that
your result is similar to solipsism but never as
all existence
F.H.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Very interesting reasoning!
Thank you.
From: Jason Resch
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Jason,
snip
Note also, that it can be proved that for all correct Löbian machine, S4Grz =
S4Grz*. The knower is the same from the
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 06:52:52PM -0400, Rex Allen wrote:
So how does this prove what I said false?
Hi Bruno, Rex and Friends,
My .002$...
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 9:22 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 04 Jun 2011, at 20:03, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4,
Hi Jason,
Very interesting reasoning!
From: Jason Resch
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun
Hi Brent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:53 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS and natural laws
On 5/24/2011 7:26 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ronaldheld
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:58 AM
From: meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS and natural laws
On 5/24/2011 10:04 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
[meekrdb]
They seem determined to find fine-tuning:
To see that this is so, let us look
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 3:28 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 21 May 2011, at 19:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/21/2011 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3-OMs are sequenced by
Hi Brent and Bruno,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul
Hi Scerir and Friends,
Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin makes a
very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the experience of free
will.
You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA
I
Dear Bruno,
I am interested in more of your thinking on several ideas that you
mention in this post.
1) The 8 hypostases as N-OM; N = 1 - 8
2) Is this physical instantiation of a 3-OM is an infinite mathematical
object phrasing equivalent to saying that the physical instantiation of a
Hi Brent,
Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not necessary for
consciousness, then consciousness does not require a persistent structure to
supervene upon. No?
Onward!
Stephen
From: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:38 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
their implications, a sort of attempt at
a reductio ad absurdum.
Onward!
Stephen
From: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Interesting! If we
Dear Bruno,
How beautifully said! This is a rediscovery of ideas that we find in many
mythological systems. We are God that forgot what we truly are.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the
Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:24 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I
Hi Rex,
A very good point! There must be a place for false memories in our
modal logics. Could these be included in the Bp p where the p is not
necessarily true in all worlds?
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:30 PM
To:
of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Rex,
I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as a
horrid heresy by most physicists
You seem to have an uninformed opinion of physicists. The physicists I know
don't consider anything heresy
: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:01 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
How beautifully said! This is a rediscovery of ideas that we find in many
mythological systems
and ask ontological
questions. ;-)
Onward,
Stephen
From: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 11:29 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Oh you bet! Chopra and those like
Hi Stathis,
-Original Message-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Brent and Everything
Dear Brent,
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves
Hi selva,
We are actively exploring exactly those kinds of questions. Please feel
free to jump in, the water is warm. ;-)
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: selva
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Considering
, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 10:22 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011
Hi Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:22:23AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My point is that “the whole human history timeline” assumes
Hi Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:32 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:35:10AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Is not the SSA “the idea that you should reason as if you were
for the electromagnetic radiation
emitted by a hot object.
Onward,
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May 2011, at 05:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2011 7:53 PM, Stephen Paul
: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:15 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May 2011, at 04:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Did you see the rest of that post?
How does my sketch (replicated here) work out as a probability
-0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
But surely you can see that this “linear human history” is one
that can only be defined from the assumption that “all human history”
can be determined. That’s the rub, it assumes the ability to know
something that requires the existence of an external
Hi Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May 2011, at 13:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
But this is problematic since dreams are 3p describable by the diary
Hi Brent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 10:22 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:31 AM
To: everything-list
Hi Russell,
Right! The OM would be the lower bound on a duration spanning any
experience.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:17:38AM
errata. damn spell checker...
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:19 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
Hi Brent,
No, the Newtonian case would be such that the logical non-contradiction
requirement would be trivial
Hi Bent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:31 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 9:19 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
No, the Newtonian case would be such that the logical
non-contradiction requirement
Hi Russell,
**
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:19:28AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My argument is that the traditional notion of a measure does
Dear Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:27 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have been thinking hard about the Doomsday Argument
.
Onward!
Stephen
.
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Self-aware = Consciousness?
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 06:02:10PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Stephen (going out on the crack pot edge!)
I have to confess I
Hi Quentin,
I seem to need to read up on the prior discussion! I’ll look for the wiki
article.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
2011/5/6 Stephen Paul King stephe
HI Russell,
I don’t get it!
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
My physical body has myopia
Hi Folks,
I have been thinking hard about the Doomsday Argument and a question struck
me. Why does it seems that genomic heredity does not seem to play any role in
the determination of what body, location, etc. one discovers one’s 1p
(subjective sense of self in the world) to exist in.
Hi Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 7:25 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Max Substitution level = Min Observer Moment?
Stephen King wrote:
PS, to Russell: I think that you are conflating consciousness
with self-awareness in section 9.5 of your
of electrical charge, I hope!
Bruno
Saibal
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 30 Apr 2011, at 09:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/29/2011 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Apr 2011, at 02:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion
From: meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 5/1/2011 7:08 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I think that in this discussion one is assuming that the classical
picture of an OM applies and that then leads to
Hi John,
I love your comments!
Onward!
Stephen
From: John Mikes
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:05 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Love and Free Will
Dear Bruno and Brent:
(not quite sure which 'open' par belongs to whom, since they are open in
Bruno's text as well
From: meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Love and Free Will
On 5/1/2011 1:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Observer: I generalize the term to anything getting into relational
connection with anything else, not restricted to 'conscious'
From: meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 7:24 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Max Substitution level = Min Observer Moment?
On 5/1/2011 3:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
It does not exist ontologically, but still exist (and is unavoidable)
epistemologically. X can
Hi Bruno,
Is UD sequentially COmpact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequentially_compact
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:45 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 29 Apr 2011, at 02:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion of an “observer
moment” corresponding
, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell and Bruno,
I’ve been slowly reading “The Theory of Nothing” by Russell K. Standish
and stumbled over the following sentence (that has Bruno’s discussion of the
Movie Graph Argument and Maudlin’s Olympia and Klara in the context): “All
physical
From: meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:43 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 4/28/2011 2:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
But does this only make the problem worse? The quantity of information
that would have
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:14 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:20:24PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
But does this only make the problem worse? The quantity
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Quantum decoherence
On 27 Apr 2011, at 22:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2011 12:16 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Recently I have seen interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms
of
Hi Russell and Bruno,
I’ve been slowly reading “The Theory of Nothing” by Russell K. Standish and
stumbled over the following sentence (that has Bruno’s discussion of the Movie
Graph Argument and Maudlin’s Olympia and Klara in the context): “All physical
processes occupying single
Hi Bruno,
You mentioned in a previous mail “the duality between Bp and Bp p”. Could
you elaborate on this? Is it a Stone or a Pontryagin duality? (these are
different!)
Also, are there any restriction on the content of the proposition p? Could
a model of a possible world be a p? I ask
Hi Rex,
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [OT] Love and free will
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:32 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
We exercise a decisionmaking 'will' that is a product of
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:45 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [OT] Love and free will
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One
more
consider in detail an idea that emerged here in my post and Bruno's
response:
***
start cut/paste
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:02 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A possible flaw un UDA?
Hi Stephen,
On 13 Apr 2011, at 02:35, Stephen Paul King
Hi Bruno,
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 1:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Causality = 1p Continuity?
On 03 Apr 2011, at 05:15, stephenk wrote:
snip
[SPK] That
Hi Bruno,
I found what I have been looking for: arxiv.org/pdf/0812.1290
Onward!
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:39 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 1P-causality
Hi Stephen,
On 08 Apr 2011, at 00:25, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Thus
Hi Bruno,
Thus wisdom is a measure of how much one knows that one does not know.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 1P-causality
Hi John,
I indulge myself in a slight correction on a statement,
-Original Message-
From: Nick Prince
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Is QTI false?
Yes Sheldrakes ideas are just the kind of thing I was thinking of. I
think that he looked at my paper and used a reference to, I think?
alligned himself with
Hi Bruno,
Sometimes I feel that you are not reading what I write at all. :(
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 1:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Causality = 1p Continuity?
On 03 Apr 2011, at 05:15, stephenk wrote:
snip
to a proof that P = NP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
I confess that I still do not have a wording to express my thought on this,
but I need to put this claim out there.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 5:22 PM
To: everything-list
Hi Saibal
Are you defining time as isomorphic to the Real number line? Could it be
that all of these proofs of the nonexistence of time are really just
proofs that time is *not* that but something else entirely? It seems to me
that we are thinking of the way that we can chronometrize
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 8:52 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is QTI false?
On 31 Mar 2011, at 13:53, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
In
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is QTI false?
On 31 Mar 2011, at 15:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
***
Hi!
There seems to be a conflation of the ideas of the continuity of 1st
think
On 11 Mar 2011, at 03:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
Dear Stephen,
On 10 Mar 2011, at 16:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-Original Message
Dear Andrew and Bruno,
Please forgive my intrusion here but I both share a concern with Andrew
about a concept being discussed and have a series of comments.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Soltau
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 7:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
: Friday, March 11, 2011 4:19 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Implementing Machines
On 11/03/11 16:54, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Andrew and Bruno,
Please forgive my intrusion here but I both share a concern with Andrew
about a concept being discussed and have
fixing my typos
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 10:24 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Implementing Machines
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see in all of this detail leads
to is, that at its core essence, Existence is Change itself. Becoming
-Original Message-
From: ronaldheld
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:18 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: The Emergence of Consciousness in the Quantum Universe
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1651v1.pdf
Here we go again.
Ronald
***
Hi Ronald!
From: Andrew Soltau
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
On 09/03/11 16:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that there are
different frames that have an implicit sequence and
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
On 10 Mar 2011, at 13:47, Andrew Soltau wrote:
All the moments exist, and as Deutsch points out, as you summarise,
'The appearance
501 - 600 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
