[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from
computational reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining
On 16 Jan 2014, at 05:10, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from
On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by
quantum events more clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am
There are an awful lot of hidden assumptions implied by that first explicit
assumption imagine a world in which everything is computational.
I've asked for clarification from Edgar, but I won't hold my breath while I
wait.
On 16 January 2014 22:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?
On 16 January 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is
:] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world
: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?
What is doing
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing
Actually I can't be bothered asking Edgar the same questions again and
getting no answer again (or a non-answer like the one he just gave Chris,
while carefully ignoring me). If he wants to ignore my questions, I
shouldnt waste time asking. So I have deleted my post restating the
questions I asked
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
events more clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In
particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
spacetime background does NOT exist.
Now
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Dear Edgar,
There is another way to get particle property conservation: Particles
that happen to have the same properties have a symmetry that is unique to
QM: the exchange symmetryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_interaction.
Study it carefully. :-)
This symmetry does not require a
On 1/15/2014 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more
clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the
usually imagined single pre-existing
On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations?
Whatever it is,
I would like to know what Edgar means by a computational world before I
worry about deriving the properties of particles.
--
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
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar
at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?
What is doing the imagining
On 03 Jan 2014, at 19:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no
computations happening. It's a static block universe.
Is that possible?
The only time needed for the notion of computation is the
successor relation on the non
On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you
switch it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real question is do we have the
On 03 Jan 2014, at 21:07, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you
switch it on? I am
On 04 Jan 2014, at 02:44, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Exactly – the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it
can say whatever it wants – after all who is checking lol -- and so
can be customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally
tuned comforting warm blanket of –
On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!
Why not?
On 03 Jan 2014, at 23:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim
On 04 Jan 2014, at 09:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware.
On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:
If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to
interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the
contradiction and progress toward possible
On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as
fundamental and then
I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he
took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the outside time
experience.
Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also
this...
In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an I, but instead
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first
person view is the view of a computation, then
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
Okay, and I can agree with this in some
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?
If you switch it off, it
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real
On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for
a claim that
I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent!
(...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :)
On 4 January 2014 11:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb
On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...
On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at
That's the truth! But to be fair, most of it was paid by my insurance.
Brent
On 1/3/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health
care system...
On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...
On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 1:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 02 Jan 2014, at 21
On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges
Marchal
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?
Because all correct
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 01 Jan 2014
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?
OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.
But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.
Dear Stephen,
On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I really do appreciate the details!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we
observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or
know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know
Dear Bruno,
I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
us a 3p.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I really do appreciate the details!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33,
Dear Stephen,
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the
other which will give us a 3p.
That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How does it emerge?
The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.
I see this
On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece
of the UD work.
Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states
corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite? Isn't
On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and
induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and
G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.
As an analysis of
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 31 Dec 2013
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union
of the finite piece of the UD work.
Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the
number of UD states
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing
in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look
inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth
about
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go...
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.
The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
Dear Edgar,
I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
Stephen,
No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
understand the concept of the Surprise
Hi Edgar,
Wheeler shows how it is possible to obtain an emergent world from
interactions between observers. It seems that I might have the exactly
title of the paper wrong!
Please read this! You will see the relevance immediately!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense
of computations.
The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
conscious,
Dear Edgar,
You are making a claim without support. Can you explain a mechanism that
generates the occurrence of the content of the computations. Bruno and
Wheeler do. I am much more Happy with Wheeler's explanation involving
interactions, but he does not explain observers. Bruno does give us a
Dear Bruno,
Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? If we follow Wheeler's
reasoning there is no such thing!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious
Dear Bruno,
I really do appreciate the details!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?
Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last
Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this
- avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face
of all the evidence,
On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't
observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling
and we know that we know (although not as such).
Here I use comp +
On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
Liz, et al,
I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my
business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just
responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or
those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the
On 1 January 2014 12:09, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz, et al,
I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my
business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just
responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or
those
Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response
is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too
difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical
beauty).
Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum
Dear LizR,
Indeed! The observation of ultra high energy gamma rays that traveled a
long long way ... no dependence seen between energy and velocity...
My thought was to replace the single IceCube or FishBowl of space-time
with many; one per observer with a composition rule for observers
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time.
Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the
computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything.
The fact that
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
change between them. does not explain anything. I have read
On 30 December 2013 22:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of
time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and
the computations compute clock time.
The computations
On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:25, LizR wrote:
I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD runs inside
arithmetic
Don't push me too much as I really want to explain this to you :)
It is not completely obvious, especially if we want be 100% rigorous.
There are not so much textbook
On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds
of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the
computations, and the computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are
connected
to each other in a way that makes there
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
are connected to each other
Dear Brent,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
are
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we
On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Brent,
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here.
No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not
random per se. The universe
On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist
in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and
they led to here.
No, the one we happen to find ourselves in
On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here.
Yeah, it's the WAP.
Seems quite
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to
exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings
happen
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
