Re: A question for Trump supporters

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 11:20:44 PM UTC+1 Brent Meeker wrote: On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: *> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this ki

Re: A question for Trump supporters

On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: /> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It would have to come from Congress./ The

Re: A question for Trump supporters

Out of curiosity, have you read the full text of the ruling? On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:47 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility. Were > Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied election > one-by-one by acts of Congress?

Re: A question for Trump supporters

The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility. Were Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied election one-by-one by acts of Congress?  I don't think so. Why is any "action" needed unless someone challenges their disqualification on factual grounds. B

Re: A question for Trump supporters

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > *> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from > a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action. It > would have to come from Congress.* > Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the

Re: A question for Trump supporters

Even if we allow for the sake of a hypothetical that Trump directly was part of an "insurrection," states have no authority to make this determination around eligibility under the 14th amendment.The ruling was unanimous including from liberals on the court who despise Trump, and does nothing t

Re: A question for Trump supporters

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks wrote: *> How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the > Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to > "lawfully protest . . . "? * > Something like that couldn't be interpreted as an insurrection, but I w

Re: A question for Trump supporters

Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC. How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully protest . . . "?  And, it's doubtful 2nd Amendment will be allowed by the owners

A question for Trump supporters

Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second amendment to the Constitution? John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropoli

A question for lawyers

I don't know if there are any lawyers or accountants around here but I have a question. The Alabama Supreme Court has just decreed that frozen embryos, and even fertilized egg cells, are legally children, some people have dozens of them and if all of them are children then couldn't the

Re: A question for Trump supporters

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:42 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > And it would be of huge benefit to the Republican party for Trump to be > disqualified. * > If Congress had convicted Trump in either of his impeachment trials he would've been disqualified from running for president again, and I'm sure if i

Re: A question for Trump supporters

And it would be of huge benefit to the Republican party for Trump to be disqualified.  As it is, he's going to pull down some Congressional Repugs with him, just like he did in 2020.  The polls say Haley and DeSantis would both do better against Biden than does Trump. Brent On 1/6/2024 1:06 P

A question for Trump supporters

In Illinois since the 1950s red scare it has been traditional for Republican presidential candidates to sign a loyalty oath swearing not to try to overthrow the government. Trump signed that oath in 2016 and 2020 (and broke his oath in 2021), but this year he has refused to even sign it. So unless

A question for Trump supporters

The states of Colorado in Maine want to remove Trump from the presidential ballot because of Section 3 of the 14th amendment which says: "*No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the Unite

Re: A question about relativity

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:04 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January

Re: A question about relativity

On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 3:06:23 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:43:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/1/2020 7:57 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: A question about relativity

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:43:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/1/2020 7:57 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/1/202

Re: A question about relativity

On 2/1/2020 10:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:12:01 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/1/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On

Re: A question about relativity

On 2/1/2020 7:57 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UT

Re: A question about relativity

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:12:01 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/1/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM

Re: A question about relativity

On 2/1/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson w

Re: A question about relativity

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Fe

Re: A question about relativity

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *>But what if the CMB is the local clock?

Re: A question about relativity

On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: />But what if the CMB _is_ the local clock? / I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres

Re: A question about relativity

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *>But what if the CMB is the local clock? * > > > I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the CMB > look about the same to you then you'd k

Re: A question about relativity

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *>But what if the CMB is the local clock? * I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the CMB look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion was about the same as the average motion of matter in the universe, i

Re: A question about relativity

On 2/1/2020 4:41 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 5:20:43 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:47 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: /> My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no relative motion wrt anything, so

Re: A question about relativity

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 5:20:43 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:47 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no >> relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG* > > > It

Re: A question about relativity

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:47 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no > relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG* It can't. Nobody said the CMB looks the same for everybody regardless of their motion. It

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 6:34:32 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrenc

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/31/2020 7:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:24:07 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> >>

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> This simultaneity is the Hubble frame. >>> >>> LC >>> >>

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if >>> you use th

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> This simultaneity is the Hubble frame. >> >> LC >> > > No Wiki article on the "Hubble frame" and no definition that I can find on > Internet

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if >> you use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature >> decline of

Re: A question about relativity

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if > you use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature > decline of the CMBR is exceedingly slow), simultaneity for all observers in > all galaxies ex

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > This simultaneity is the Hubble frame. > > LC > No Wiki article on the "Hubble frame" and no definition that I can find on Internet. What exactly is it? TIA, AG -- You received this message because you are subscrib

Re: A question about relativity

This simultaneity is the Hubble frame. LC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussi

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:59:05 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: A question about relativity

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:59 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > The time dilation associated with red shift of radiation is uniform out > to a certain distance of around 46 billion light years. It is fairly > uniform to within 10^{-5} in isotropy. And if you have ti

Re: A question about relativity

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> O

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: That's not it. I think the two observers, one

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/30/2020 5:29 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:37:22 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and >> one here, wo

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and > one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant > galaxy's speed of recession

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what puzzles me. AG Ask yourself /

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/30/2020 10:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wro

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/30/2020 7:36 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:22:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: /> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock which is running slower compared to

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:33:44 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UT

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at nea

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. >> So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much sl

Re: A question about relativity

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So > according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates > than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:22:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock >> which is running slower compared to a local clock in this galaxy, and the >> CMBR clocks

Re: A question about relativity

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:22:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock >> which is running slower compared to a local clock in this galaxy, and the >> CMBR clocks

Re: A question about relativity

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock which > is running slower compared to a local clock in this galaxy, and the CMBR > clocks at every location in the universe which are synchronized, what is > the status of ti

Re: A question about relativity

On 1/29/2020 7:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 12:18:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: The idea that some clocks run slower than others is a confusion.  Talk of clocks in general relativity always refers to ideal clocks that, by definition, run at identical r

Re: A question about relativity

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 12:18:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > The idea that some clocks run slower than others is a confusion. Talk of > clocks in general relativity always refers to ideal clocks that, by > definition, run at identical rates when compared at the same place. > "Runnin

Re: A question about relativity

The idea that some clocks run slower than others is a confusion. Talk of clocks in general relativity always refers to ideal clocks that, by definition, run at identical rates when compared at the same place.  "Running slow" really refers to taking a shorter path (less elapsed proper time) thru

Re: A question about relativity

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 3:23:16 AM UTC-7, smitra wrote: > > On 29-01-2020 10:31, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson > > wrote: > > > >> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light > >> speed. So according to

Re: A question about relativity

On 29-01-2020 10:31, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates than, say, a local clock in our gala

Re: A question about relativity

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So > according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates > than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical cloc

A question about relativity

Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time

Re: A question for Bruno

I realise I did not answer this post. As the step 7 is crucial, I will make some remark, and try to answer the question. Sorry for the delay Charles. On 28 Aug 2016, at 00:38, Charles Goodwin wrote: Hi everyone and everything, I was discussing comp and similar things with Liz the other day

Re: A question for Bruno

On 16 Sep 2016, at 17:40, Stephen Paul King wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy i

Re: A question for Bruno

I apologize but it seems that none of us has time to explain other people's ideas to each other or to read their papers for ourselves. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2016, at 03:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > The idea is to think of computations as discret

Re: A question for Bruno

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" C

Re: A question for Bruno

On 16 Sep 2016, at 03:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing: process one algorithm and halt. or not halt. You limit yourself to halting computation. If each halting computation is simpler than arbitrary computations, it happens th

Re: A question for Bruno

On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet co

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 20:03, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those theories. Remembe

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 17:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: In the UD model of the world, time as we perce

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 19:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still suspect that a weak

Re: A question for Bruno

That's a good example, actually! On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > Can you give an example? What I'm led to think of is something like: > % Add two and two > print "4" > halt > > Brent > > > > On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > The idea is to think

Re: A question for Bruno

Can you give an example? What I'm led to think of is something like: % Add two and two print "4" halt Brent On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing: process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking

Re: A question for Bruno

The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing: process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing machines... On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the i

Re: A question for Bruno

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, > I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories > > > I don't understand what you m

Re: A question for Bruno

What I meant was that the subjective experience of time would be the same whether there was a material universe with real time, a material block universe without time, or no material universe. On 16 September 2016 at 02:16, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrot

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories I don't understand what you mean by that. I assume "theories" refers to axiomatic systems. I

Re: A question for Bruno

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they o

Re: A question for Bruno

According to Bruno it's in Platonia. It's timeless and doesn't "go", it just IS, like 2+2 IS 4. Brent On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 a

Re: A question for Bruno

I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's theorem could solve this problem, b

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Hi Stathis, I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the timing, order or dura

Re: A question for Bruno

OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an > implicit order (the execution of the UD), but the

Re: A question for Bruno

In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative order of the threads. Brent On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with w

Re: A question for Bruno

Could it be that the concrete is the subjective reflection of the abstract? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King < > stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > >> Hi Stathis

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote: Hi Stathis, I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are

Re: A question for Bruno

There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are labels, not the change itself. On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Sep 201

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent. The "execution" of t

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi Stathis, > >I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we > need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the > timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this > requ

Re: A question for Bruno

On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent. The "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia. So

Re: A question for Bruno

Hi Stathis, I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not

Re: A question for Bruno

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:13 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent. The >>> "execution" of the program is timeless a

Re: A question for Bruno

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 11:25 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On 14/09/2016 10:13 am, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent. The "e

  1   2   >