Bruno and others, here is how a Star Trek transporter work(taken from
Memory Alpha):
A typical transport sequence began with a coordinate lock, during
which the destination was verified and programmed, via the targeting
scanners. Obtaining or maintaining a transporter lock enables the
suggestion, for serious studies, is:
1) Mendelson
2) Boolos 1979
Bruno
On 18 Sep 2009, at 15:14, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
It sounds as if the way to begin is with the latest Mendelson book.
Ronald
On Sep 18, 2:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc
a problem to find them, or if you search for other
books. Logicians like to write book, and there are many of them.
Original papers on the UDA and AUDA can be found on my web pages
(http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
).
Bruno
On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:48, ronaldheld wrote:
I thought
arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
into 'machine-consciousness' etc.
ideas.
John M
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text
I thought that I would start a thread to consolidate some of the books
useful in following current and old threads. if people alos want to
post key papers here, I do not see a problem with that.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
Bruno:
the Plotinus paper is the first one on your list of publications on
your website?
Ronald
On Aug 18, 10:46 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Ronald,
On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:14, ronaldheld wrote:
I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do
Bruno:
I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases
. Ronald
On Aug 18, 2:58 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 16:23, ronaldheld wrote:
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
Very
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 unsubscribe from this group, send
I think I have at least two problems, not necessarily well formulated.
I accept that there are concepts(mathematical) that are not necessrily
part of the physical Universe(Multiverse). I do not see that there are
only the abstractions.
Also, Bruno mentions QM, as being included in COMP. QM is an
I am behind, because I was away delivering Science talk to Star Trek
fans.
I am uncertain what to take away from this thread, and could use the
clarification.
As an aside, I read(or tried to) read the SANE paper on the plane.
Ronald
On Aug 10, 11:24
As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
something else?
Ronald
On Aug 6, 10:23 pm, Brent
, ronaldheld wrote:
I am following, but have not commented, because there is nothing
controversal.
Cool. Even the sixth first steps of UDA?
When you are done, can your posts be consolidated into a paper or a
document that can be read staright through?
I should do that.
Bruno
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
Bruno:
I understand a little better. is there a citition for a version of
Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
FORTRAN?
Ronald
On Jun 4, 10:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Ronald,
On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno
Russell:
Maybe you might be interested in gfortran(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/
GFortran)?
Ronald
On Jun 2, 6:38 pm, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Since I program
modified paper from Tegmark:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.2182v1.pdf
Ronald
On May 19, 5:41 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to branch away temporarily, due to the Star Trek movie.
Is it the case in MWI, that a decision
I would like to branch away temporarily, due to the Star Trek movie.
Is it the case in MWI, that a decision is made in Universe A
(destruction of the Kelvin). Before that event, the Universe, or at
least the causal part of it has a certain physical configuration.
Immediately after that event,
wrote:
Ronald,
On 14 May 2009, at 13:19, Ronald (ronaldheld) wrote:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
UDA *is* the detailed explanation of that physics statement. So it
would be simpler if you could tell me at which step you have a problem
I still do not see any arguments against what I read, that one
Universe fits observations better than the MWI.
Ronald
On May 15, 1:01 am, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
On May 14, 9:47 pm, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
On May 14, 4:45
Bruno:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
Ronald
On May 13, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks Russell, I will take a look. At first sight he makes the same
error with numbers that
read Aixiv.org:0905.0624v1 (quant-ph) and see if you agree with it
Ronald
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
Arxiv.org:0904.0867v1
I think the author presents some good arguments.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
I thought I would add the paper:Temporal Platonic
Metaphysics:arxiv.org:0903.18001v1
On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Not certain what thread this belongs in so I started up a new one.
arxiv.org:0903.1193v1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Not certain what thread this belongs in so I started up a new one.
arxiv.org:0903.1193v1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Stathis
This was mentioned in the TNG technical manual. I do not recall,
right, now, which post TOS episodes mentioned it.
Ronald
On Mar 2, 8:42 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
Bruno:
Dur to financial considerations I will wait for the fifth edition
to come out.
On Feb 28, 6:11 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:34, ronaldheld wrote:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I really
Maybe the terminology does not fit here, to make a copy of my brain,
wouldn't you need more than memories, but the state of the brain at
one time to quantum resolution (TNG transporter term).
Ronald
On Feb 23, 9:04 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I will take a look at some of the links on Podnieks page.
Ronald
On Feb 26, 11:17 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Feb 2009, at 16:40, ronaldheld
Perhaps this paper would be of interest:
Deterministic multivalued logic scheme for information processing and
routing in the brain(arxiv.org/abs/0902.2033)?
Speaking of logic, even though I am not starting from zero,and given
that it is not my full time profession, which papers/book should be
Bruno
Have you seen this:
V. Walsh, A theory of magnitude:common cortical metrics of time, spce
and quantity, trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483 (2003)
This was a one reference in a paper on time I just read today( Time
and Causation http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0559
I do not know that the ekpyrotic and cyclic models reprodce the
observations better than the BB+inflation.
Yes, no one knows what the inflation field is, but no one has observed
a gluon or single quark either.
I do not know what Penrose's argument is.Without the observable
Universe being in
I do not see the Inflation paradigm as ad-hoc, for it explains the
flatness, Horizon problem and lack of early universe relics better
than any other to date. Now the Big Bang may be replaced by
oscillating solutions from LQG or other theories, but AFAIK they still
need an Inflation period.
Bruno:
I may have missed something in the last two days.
I still do not understand. You say this starts with the real world,
which to me is the physical universe/Multiverse, but it actually
starts with arithmetic. How is there any mathematics with nothing to
conceive of it? What are the
Bruno:
I am uncertain that this was answered.
You are starting with mathematics, and going to some Multiversal
computation program? If there is no physical universe, what does the
computer run on? With no energy, how are your thoughts being
generated?
Bruno:
I am aware of Everett's many worlds universe, which is predicted on
the wavefunction not collapsing. So far, that seems to be
experientally so.
Not many Physicists take consciousness into account, althought there
is a paper I just found today you may be interested in:http://
Bruno:
We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not
exist yet. I would think it would be QM and General Relativity and
other things we do not know.
Could this program be running an evolving mathematical structure
or maybe you prefer evolving block universe/multiverse?
This is going to be crude, but if I understand what Bruno( and others)
are saying, there is no Physics or physical universe. There is a (are)
large computer program(s) running, some segment of which exhibits
consciousness? Does that crudely imply that everything I sense could
be considered a
I would think that Star Trek is Level I, and that Level III adds
nothing.
The comment that Q(and maybe The Prophets) comes from a Level IV is
something I may be able to use if he knows how to change our physical
low energy laws to anything that is possible(and suits his current
needs).
Of course,
Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or
Level III?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
Can someone construct an example I can understand, to compute the
nearest distance to a Level I duplicate? Perhaps all of the ones I
have read are too coarse estimates?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Thanks for all of the suggestions, past and future.
I will be reading the paper by Guariga and Vilenkin
In this case finding the correct level to present at is about as
difficult as compuring certain measures.I tend to be at a higher level
than most of the audience can easily understand, but in
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
