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 ruled out by GR. The problem is
On 10 Sep 2017, at 08:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 10/09/2017 6:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote:
You have to keep in mind that my theory is a model - the bitstrings
are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. They represent the
data
On 09 Sep 2017, at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/9/2017 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an
observer can only be defined in relation to an
On 10/09/2017 6:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote:
You have to keep in mind that my theory is a model - the bitstrings
are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. They represent the data
interpreted by an observer. Something like a universal
On 9/9/2017 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a world to
On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:48:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is right, but fortunately, a computation, when executed, is not
a pile of states, is more like a precisely structured set of states.
We still cannot found the observer there,
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a
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 ruled out by GR. The problem is still that you have
simply introduced a time parameter out of thin air.
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 ruled out by GR. The problem is still that you have
> simply introduced a time parameter out of thin air. If you are to
> have time in the picture,
On 8/09/2017 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness
requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:48:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That is right, but fortunately, a computation, when executed, is not
> a pile of states, is more like a precisely structured set of states.
> We still cannot found the observer there, except for some of them,
> but that is not
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness
requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical thinking (in the frame of Digital Mechanism).
You
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 12:05 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 11:40 am, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On 8/09/2017 11:40 am, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On 8/09/2017 12:05 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
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
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 possible bitstring will represent the
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 relevant passages -- numbers of
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 possible bitstring will represent the OM of me
sitting at this keyboard typing to you under some coding. It is
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 relevant passages -- numbers of pages or sections to
look at might help.
Time is discussed in S4.3,
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 bitstrings. On the other
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 bitstrings. On the other hand, I do have some
difficulty accepting off-hand that all possible
com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 5, 2017 12:55 am
Subject: Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?
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 bitstrings. On the other hand, I do h
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 bitstrings. On the other hand, I do have some
> difficulty accepting off-hand that all possible bitstrings exist in
> some sense or the other.
On 5/09/2017 10:02 am, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:40:01AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When I
suggested that your idea of an observer interpreting strings was
dualist, I meant property/function dualism, not
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:40:01AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When I
> suggested that your idea of an observer interpreting strings was
> dualist, I meant property/function dualism, not Cartesian substance
> dualism. So you want an OM
On 5/09/2017 8:39 am, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:14:12PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
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.
But as Bruce pointed out,
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:14:12PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>
> >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.
>
> But as Bruce pointed out, that's a dualist model in which
On 9/4/2017 2:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:13:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
The whole point of the the bitstrings is that they are interpreted by
something we call an observer. In the usual Comp Sci setup, there is a
reference universal Turing machine, but when
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:13:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >The whole point of the the bitstrings is that they are interpreted by
> >something we call an observer. In the usual Comp Sci setup, there is a
> >reference universal Turing machine, but when talking about everything
> >theories,
On 9/3/2017 8:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
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
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 of bits naturally map to
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 of bits naturally map to vectors in a complex vector
space. There are some lemmas, proofs and
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 of bits naturally map to vectors in a complex vector
space. There are some lemmas, proofs and conjectures (theorems I
haven't managed to prove yet, but
On 21/07/2017 4:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of this stuff by Zurek. It might be
very relevant.
A good summary by Zurek is given in http://arxiv.org/0707.2832
Bruce
Cheers
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:07:52AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I have been
Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of this stuff by Zurek. It might be
very relevant.
Cheers
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:07:52AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> I have been reading up on Zurek's 'existential interpretation of QM.
> This is an interesting attempt to understand unitary QM in an
>
On 21/07/2017 4:55 am, 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:
On 6/07/2017 2:33 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
Establishing linearity is
On 21/07/2017 4:55 am, 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:
On 6/07/2017 2:33 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
Establishing linearity is
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.
> >>Yes, and you haven't made
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.
Yes, and you haven't made progress with that.
All I ask is to give me some more time on this. I have some
41 matches
Mail list logo
