edge stuffed in this list.
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M"
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John,
Perhaps I have misunderstood if you were presenting an alter
oes not?
> Best wishes
> John M
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "John M"
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
> Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
>
>
>
> John M writes:
>
W. C. wrote:
>>From: Brent Meeker
>>...
>>But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat
>>steak is not perfect for me.
>>
>>
>>>People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a
>>
>>PU > will be.
>>
>>I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since
>From: Brent Meeker
>...
>But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat
>steak is not perfect for me.
>
> > People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a
>PU > will be.
>
>I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU
W. C. wrote:
>>From: Brent Meeker
>
>
>>I don't think it's possible, because "perfect" is subjective. Perfect for
>>the lion is bad for the antelope.
>>
>
>
> Such problem doesn't exist in PU.
> In PU, there is no food chain like "A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.".
> Perfect beings (both
>From: Brent Meeker
>I don't think it's possible, because "perfect" is subjective. Perfect for
>the lion is bad for the antelope.
>
Such problem doesn't exist in PU.
In PU, there is no food chain like "A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.".
Perfect beings (both living and non-living) mean no u
Norman Samish wrote:
> I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I
> intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI
> too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again.
This is diusputed, e.g. in http://www.hedweb.com/manw
e mail I detected my 'original' and "lost" text, it was snatched
away and mailed.
The two are pretty different.
Redface John
- Original Message -
From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's ar
t wishes
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M"
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John M writes:
> Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further ba
Norman Samish wrote:
> I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it
> well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of
> MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it
> again.
>
> I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler,
John M wrote:
> Stathis:
> "I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved
> wrong given enough
> time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all."
> Funny that you of all people come up with such a supposition so different
> from fundamental basic human nature
W. C. wrote:
> I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain
> our universe.
> Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by
> our limitations
> (as designed by the so-called Creator if any).
> So I always think it's possible to produce
gain understanding. I sit at the feet of brilliant thinkers and
listen.Norman~~- Original
Message - From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything
List" Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006
11:06 AMSubject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp>
Norman Samish wrote:
> Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your
> statement. It seems to boil down to "Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do
> with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum
> superpositions."
Correct.
> Fair enough.
>
> When I rea
From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
>
>
> Norman Samish wrote:
>> 1Z,
>> I don't know what you mean.
>
> That is unfortunate, because as far a
er's
Cat
was mooted decades before anyone even thought of quantum computaion.
> Norman
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Everything List"
> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Bruno's argu
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M"
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John M writes:
> Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a
> st
Message -
> > From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
> >
> >
> >>
> >> To All:
> >> I know my questions below are beyo
ntum Universe?
4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in "quantum universes" without
computational assistance?
Norman
- Original Message -
From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Re:
>From: Quentin Anciaux
>
>Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection.
>
OK. If you want more, I will say perfection in PU is *every being is perfect
and feels perfect (if it has feeling)*.
This doesn't mean that every being is exactly the same. They may have
different s
Norman Samish wrote:
> I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be
> a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
> simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
> computer in action.
Quantum computers are only pos
t 04, 2006 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
>
> I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may
> be
> a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
> simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are obser
t. (Digital that is).
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
> Are we reinventing the religion?
Yes.
No
OK John, I say more on your post.
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
>
> To All:
> I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read
> (and
> write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
>
> is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers req
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
> Are we reinventing the religion?
Yes.
Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the
problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can
approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the
sci
Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection.
Le Samedi 5 Août 2006 13:12, W. C. a écrit :
> Good question. But I don't think we need to define "perfect".
> You can check the dictionary to know its meaning.
> Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be
Good question. But I don't think we need to define "perfect".
You can check the dictionary to know its meaning.
Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU.
>From: everything-list@googlegroups.com The problem with perfection is that
>this word has *no* absolute meaning.
Hi,
The problem with perfection is that this word has *no* absolute meaning.
Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning.
Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you would
be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a s
I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain
our universe.
Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by
our limitations
(as designed by the so-called Creator if any).
So I always think it's possible to produce a perfect universe by so
- Original Message -
From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
>
> To All:
> I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and
> write) so much about this idea that I f
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to
work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight.
What kin
31 matches
Mail list logo
