On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:26, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
I read the first 3 steps, Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof
is built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be
idiotic to keep reading a proof, any proof,
On 19 June 2014 01:26, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
I read the first 3 steps, Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is
built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to
keep reading a
PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two
steps. Most people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go
for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the argument that we don't need a
physical universe).
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:00:03 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
PS I must say I fin3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp. Presumably
you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two steps. Most
people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go for the MGA
(i.e. the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was inexcusably
sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since forgotten
the details of your proof. But are you telling me that the grand
conclusion of step 3
On 18 June 2014 04:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was
inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since
forgotten the details of your
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If free will just means will then why stick on the free ?
Because we believe that free does not add anything,
Except bafflegab.
except some emphasis on the needed existence of some degree of freedom.
And here we go
On 17 June 2014 05:57, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is what
I meant.
So a Turing Machine has free will.
Specifically, it does in Bruno's
On 13 Jun 2014, at 20:10, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a garden of forking paths laid out by
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:22, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
We have agree that free will = will
If free will just means will then why stick on the free ?
Because we believe that free does not add anything, except some
emphasis
On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the randomness (in the sense of normal statistical testing) of
that deterministic chaos has no other rôle in free-will than [...]
Before you start lecturing about what
On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:54, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
It [free will] is (simply) the will of a subject
I have no trouble understanding what will means, it's when free
is stuck in front of it that trouble arises.
I agree.
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb
theorem in fuzzy logic (meaning that they use the closed interval
[0, 1] has set of truth values. They illustrate that the truth
values of
On 13 Jun 2014, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a garden of forking paths laid out by
deterministic physics, within which their conscious mind could
move around (within limits).
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a garden of forking paths laid out by
deterministic physics, within which their conscious
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We have agree that free will = will
If free will just means will then why stick on the free ?
= ability to make an image of an uncertain local future (will I drink tea
or coffee?), and to make choice
Did you really
On 6/13/2014 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free-will or will are high level cognitive ability of machine having enough
introspective ability.
But not to much! :-)
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 6/13/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb theorem in fuzzy logic
(meaning that they use the closed interval [0, 1] has set of truth values.
On 11 Jun 2014, at 16:24, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Free will is the ability to make choice,
And the ability to make a choice is the capacity to have free will
and round and round we go. Finding a synonym and finding out
-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 11 Jun 2014, at 14:05, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Even a more complex answer then the question Dr. Marchal. Neo-
Platonism might be the thing, and I know over the years
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the randomness (in the sense of normal statistical testing) of that
deterministic chaos has no other rôle in free-will than [...]
Before you start lecturing about what does and does not have a role in
free will you
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It [free will] is (simply) the will of a subject
I have no trouble understanding what will means, it's when free is
stuck in front of it that trouble arises.
in a free (virtual or real) environment
According to your
: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Jun 12, 2014 11:13 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 11 Jun 2014, at 18:16, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
The dream thing is intriguing because I am sometimes fascinated
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2014 04:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jun 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote:
As for mechanism? There won't be one, certainly not sharable
scientifically, anyway. Any number of arcane rituals or spells might
work, or might
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb theorem in fuzzy logic
(meaning that they use the closed interval [0, 1] has set of truth values. They
illustrate that the truth values of most fixed points in self-reference logic describe
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a garden of forking paths laid out by deterministic
physics, within which their conscious mind could move around (within
limits). So the p-zombies are, so to speak, the
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed
that we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI.
OK, you chose to go down branch X, but if MWI is true then in some
other worlds you chose to follow
...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 9, 2014 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:33:54AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything
List wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 10 Jun 2014, at 21:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Message-
From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 9, 2014 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:33:54AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
--
You received
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 3:38 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 10 Jun 2014, at 17:12, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
I don't think so, but thanks. The question was the idea that
zombies exist in parallel universes are just zombies till our
connectome arrives
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free will is the ability to make choice,
And the ability to make a choice is the capacity to have free will and
round and round we go. Finding a synonym and finding out more about how the
world works is not the same thing.
).
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 11 Jun 2014, at 14:05, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Even a more complex answer
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 3:38 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 10 Jun 2014, at 17:12, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
I don't think so, but thanks. The question was the idea that zombies exist
in parallel universes are just zombies till our connectome arrives
On 11 Jun 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:00:35PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200,
there is no
evolutionary pressure.
Telmo.
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 11, 2014 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:16 PM, spudboy100 via
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's
subjective probability in this was will
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:02:36 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed
On 12 June 2014 04:16, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
The dream thing is intriguing because I am sometimes fascinated by things
my visual cortex kicks out, often, before sleep comes. Ultra intricate and
non-retrievable patterns, images, songs that arise
On 12 June 2014 04:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jun 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote:
As for mechanism? There won't be one, certainly not sharable
scientifically, anyway. Any number of arcane rituals or spells might
work, or might not. For me, I don't think this
On 12 June 2014 09:10, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
p.s. another point to note about the historical 'outsider' geniuses, is
that conditions were so different back then, in fact based on the criteria
of an outsider today, they weren't even outsiders at all. In that...they
did not exhibit gaps in
--
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 post to this group, send email to
On 10 June 2014 16:51, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
You're making an assumption that this measure is proportional to the
cardinality of those branches. I'm making no such assumption. That's all.
OK, I can imagine that Alice and Bob see branch A with probability 90%,
but how
On 10 June 2014 17:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Good. Maybe it was Liz that was assuming branch counting.
Probably. But can you explain it so I can understand? (Or even so 90% of me
can?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
, 2014 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:33:54AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed that
we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI.
OK, you chose to go down branch X, but if MWI is true then in some other
worlds you chose to follow branch Y; and in all worlds you made the choice
you did
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK
On 11 June 2014 05:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed that
we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI.
OK, you chose to go down branch X, but if MWI is true then in some other
worlds you chose
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:00:35PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb
On 11 June 2014 12:22, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
As for mechanism? There won't be one, certainly not sharable
scientifically, anyway. Any number of arcane rituals or spells might
work, or might not. For me, I don't think this stuff gets much beyond
bar talk - but maybe
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's
subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from
normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In
short, the reality you inhabit will
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's
subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from
normality, one that is not visible objectively to any
The whole point here is that it's supposed to work despite the people
involved remaining alive. With quantum suicide you can see the results by
counting the branches in which various outcomes occur. In this scenario,
you can't (which is why it's so much harder, at least for me, to get my
head
On 09 Jun 2014, at 03:58, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:48:27AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 00:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The same with the MWI: we still have the ability to partially
chose the
type of future we want to belong. We can influence
--
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 post to this group, send email to
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:33:54AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
--
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
Sorry, I meant to type 10 future branches, all of which contain a copy of
both Alice and Bob.
On 10 June 2014 12:49, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2014 16:02, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Perhaps Alice gets future A with probability 0.9 and future B with
p=0.1,
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective probability of occurring. Ie the Born rule says each has a
probability of 0.5.
However, perhaps _subjectively_, Alice sees branch A with probability
0.9 and branch B with probability 0.1, and Bob sees branch A with
Sorry, I still don't get it. How can those subjective probabilities tally
with the fact that there are 2 branches, both of which contain a version of
Alice and Bob?
If I'm Bob, how can I subjectively be 90% in branch B and 10% in branch A?
What is it that has gone 90% into branch B that gives Bob
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective probability of occurring. Ie the Born rule says each has a
probability of 0.5.
However, perhaps _subjectively_, Alice sees branch A with probability
0.9 and branch B with
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:48:27AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 00:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The same with the MWI: we still have the ability to partially chose the
type of future we
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective probability of occurring. Ie the Born rule says each has a
probability of 0.5.
However, perhaps
On 10 June 2014 16:16, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Perhaps if the simulation argument is true, and some fraction of our
explanations are simulated realities, and a larger fraction of these
simulated
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective probability of occurring. Ie the Born rule says
On 6/9/2014 9:51 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:57:42PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2014 9:51 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future
On 9 June 2014 13:58, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I, for one, do not think it such a crazy idea.
When I was a child, I used to chant silently 3 times the outcome I
wanted before rolling a dice. Surprisingly, it seemed to work
(although I could easily have been deluded by
On 9 Jun 2014, at 11:58 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I don't know why I didn't discuss this idea
in my book.
Be consoled. There is a branch of the MV where you do discuss this in your book!
K
Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
Email:
On 9 June 2014 14:26, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 9 Jun 2014, at 11:58 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
I don't know why I didn't discuss this idea
in my book.
Be consoled. There is a branch of the MV where you do discuss this in your
book!
But maybe in
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:12:59PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 13:58, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I, for one, do not think it such a crazy idea.
When I was a child, I used to chant silently 3 times the outcome I
wanted before rolling a dice. Surprisingly, it
101 - 171 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
