On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable
UDA does not use that assumption.
And AUDA uses only the assumption that you believe in what PA can
prove
That is provable=believed.
That is
On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:35, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
snip
And, in AUDA,
On 18 Jan 2014, at 00:13, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I
believe just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is
already incredibly fine tuned, after which we have the amazing
properties of carbon and water, and the cosmological
On 18 Jan 2014, at 04:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I
believe just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is
already incredibly fine tuned, after which we have the amazing
properties of
On 18 January 2014 23:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Interesting. This illustrates perhaps some spectrum of different
geographies possible, with the same physics, but different parameters.
The WAP requires that, otherwise the fine tuning starts to look a little
(tries to think of
On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world
Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to
2014/1/17 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world
we appear to live in IS the real actual world
Maybe. But
On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/16/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will
On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/16/2014 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam
terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On
On 17 Jan 2014, at 08:55, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can
make any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing
On 1/17/2014 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable
UDA does not use that assumption.
And AUDA uses only the assumption that you believe in what PA can prove
That is provable=believed.
, and that you are willing to be cautious on believing
On 17 January 2014 20:55, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/16 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can
make any rules we want in the created virtual
I hope I will be able to clarify, after explaining the modal logic, why
comp put maximal constraints on the physical law, making all the rest
different instantiations of those laws.
I will be very interested to know why this is so, assuming my brain can
handle it. A lot of people have
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
fine tuned, after which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water,
and the cosmological flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.
On 18
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe just the
nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly fine tuned, after
which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water, and the cosmological flatness
and
OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on
this, plus no doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.
So we still have the properties of water and carbon and god knows what
else. Given the number of elements that don't assemble into chain
molecules, or liquids that
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
fine tuned, after which we have the
On 1/17/2014 8:17 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on this, plus no
doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.
So we still have the properties of water and carbon and god knows what else. Given
the number of elements that don't assemble
On 18 January 2014 19:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:17 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on
this, plus no doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.
So we still have the properties of water and carbon and god
On 1/17/2014 8:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
just the
nuclear resonance
Hence my suggestion that we just need to sample a lot of universes...
:-)
On 18 January 2014 19:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not
immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you
intervene repeatedly
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending dismissal in anyone
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s)
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability
in arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than
us
What does same mean here. Same coupling constants?...same number
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
Glak
On 16 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:25, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the
internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is
crossing a line. I think you owe
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one
where
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world
Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast
calculations is possible (and I can't
On 1/16/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in
a
On 1/16/2014 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 1/16/2014 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not. We have to compare the mass of the electron we measure in our
neighborhood, with the mass of the electron in the comp physics. If the comp physics is
agnostic on the electron mass, it means that the mass of electron is not a
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can make
any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to do
so.
Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
this question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a
'simulation'.
All those
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily
filtered through our own
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just
more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
On 15 January 2014 21:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine
whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is
because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the
entire reality in which the simulation is
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first
place.
The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the
measure problem on all
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you
didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.
Bruno
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:44, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L.
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first
place.
The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical
comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which
you
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:45, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending
Freq,
So now you are on my case because my previous girlfriend died of cancer a
few years back?!
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
Telmo,
Thanks Telmo!
Freq's comment was especially painful as my previous lady companion died of
cancer a few years ago which is why I was looking again.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:17:44 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist
...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 9:45 am
Subject: Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud
PGC,
No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted was
in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really starting to
understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner.
Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
2014/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
PGC,
No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted
was in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really
starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life
partner.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:43, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014
On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century deserves to be shot.
I am not sure whether or not the word is defined
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a
simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you
manipulate
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending /*dismissal*/ in anyone else's
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where Glak
emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations
from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.
You cannot change the
On 1/15/2014 4:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female
On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in arithmetic. If Glak
is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us
What does same mean here. Same coupling constants?...same number of Higgs
bosons?...same spacetime dimensions?
: Consciousness as a State of Matter
SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a compatible,
loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who believes that male
female relationships should not be adversarial or selfish, but based on mutual
love, trust and benefit
On 16 January 2014 05:57, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I
mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one
initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while
being attacked by someone
On 16 January 2014 08:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our
Mr Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century
On 16 January 2014 08:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
that he is in a simulation, but, unless you
javascript:] *On Behalf Of *
freqflyer07281972
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:26 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural
On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks /specifically/ for a non-feminist must
be wanting someone who will accept a female role from long ago and far away - they're
looking for someone docile and obedient, with non-threatening hair.
On the other hand,
Liz,
I've never called anyone on this list stupid, not a single time. You
claim I have spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid. That is
simply not true so one wonders why you would say it?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:57:53 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 16 January 2014
Brent,
Correct. I actually spell it out and make it pretty clear in the advert
what I mean by a non-feminist.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:45:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a
On 15 January 2014 23:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
On 16 January 2014 11:48, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
I've never called anyone on this list stupid, not a single time. You
claim I have spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid. That is
simply not true so one wonders why you would say it?
Because you keep implying
On 16 January 2014 11:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a
non-feminist must be wanting someone who will accept a female role from
long ago and far away - they're looking for someone
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the
internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a
line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own
On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in
my theory.
Comp needs only the arithmetical
2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
to criticize...
The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning...
your
Jason,
There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality
but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time
thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons
Brent,
Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that
exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is
ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others.
Brent,
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single
state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous
non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all
biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what
you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of
those definitions will be your answer... It's
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one
physical universe.
It is conceivable there is more than one
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there
is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
minds of biological organisms.
OK, but is the world you and I are familiar
On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by
definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is
On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that
things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum
from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We
Brent,
Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from
computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't
believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
