one time when it stayed the same. A little
> glitch is all.
>
> In truth, the longer you continued the game and the more people got
> involved the less chance a person would have of finding room assignment
> random at all. There would be increasingly few people willing to bet 50/
On 4 March 2014 18:43, meekerdb wrote:
> I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said,
>
It's quoted in the first post on this thread.
> but using FPI as in Everett QM and writing down which of two equally
> likely events you actually experience is an example of bernoulli
On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:49, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said "If you repeated the cloning
experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room
number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence
of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros
t(N) still goes toward zero as N->inf.
Brent
But still, even though I seemed to get there on my tod, at least I know what a Bernoulli
trial is now. Thanks for that.
----------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:43:29
On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:18, chris peck wrote:
So has Tegmark convinced me that in his thought experiment I would
assign 50/50 probability of seeing one or the other room each
iteration? Not really.
The question is: can you refute this. And for the UDA, you don't need
the 50%. You need onl
.
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:43:29 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't
know exactly what he said, but using FPI as in Everett QM and
writing down w
I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said, but using FPI as in
Everett QM and writing down which of two equally likely events you actually experience is
an example of bernoulli trials. The proportion of 1s and 0s both converge to 1/2 in
probability. This is exactly the w
>
> I'm sure Tegmark's world won't be shaken too much by any of this, I'm even
> more certain that I have something wrong. Though it does seem to have sent
> Bruno running for cover behind his little sums. So perhaps I am on to
> something
>
> All th
subject matter
>> seem more accessible.
Yeah, which is preferable to people with similar ideas being slap dash in order
to make them less accessible.
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:13:28 -0600
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: jasonre...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe",
>> starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreci
I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said "If you repeated the cloning experiment
from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd
in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written
looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time."
That seems
egmark's world won't be shaken too much by any of this, I'm even more
certain that I have something wrong. Though it does seem to have sent Bruno
running for cover behind his little sums. So perhaps I am on to something
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:59:05 +1300
I should also mention that in the quote, Max says that you wake up in room
0 or room 1, so if we WERE omitting leading zeroes, we'd write
"11..." !
Shurely shome mishtake!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscrib
On 3 March 2014 20:36, chris peck wrote:
> Being strict, already with binary sequences just 4 digits long, only 37.5%
> of those contain half zeros. This drops the longer the sequences get. So,
> with sequences 6 digits long, only 31.25% contain half zeros. With
> sequences 8 digits long only 27%
On 3/2/2014 11:55 PM, chris peck wrote:
*>> **Naah. The *fractional* deviation from 50/50 keeps going down as
1/sqrt(n).*
You'll have to explain further because it keeps going down. And at 4 digits its already
well below 50% And at 16 digits its already below 20%. If you're generous and say a
times (1/2)^(n-k) times (1/2)^k. If n
is big enough you can use the Gaussian normal distribution.
Bruno
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:13:23 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
"Hello, dear, looking for a bit of multi-sense
will experience 'roughly' 50% ones
or zeros, already 50% will have one or the other dominating.
That seems to me to be a far cry from what Tegmark describes.
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:43:09 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
On 3/2/2014 11:36 PM, chris peck wrote:
*>> If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down
your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros
and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time.*
dom at all.
There would be increasingly few people willing to bet 50/50 on a particular
room assignment.
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:13:23 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
"Hello, dear, looking for a bit of multi-sense rea
"Hello, dear, looking for a bit of multi-sense realism?"
On 2 March 2014 16:35, wrote:
>
> heh heh heh I love this place. It's like walking through an eccentric
> street market where traders call out their wares
>
> "GETCHYOUR P-TIME 2 for 1 logico-computational really real structure
> today on
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its
> logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible
> thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clon
On 26 Feb 2014, at 14:49, Jason Resch wrote:
I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe",
starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might
appreciate:
"It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business
really wasn't specific to quantum mech
Brent,
Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by Liz
talking about "your" theory. If so I'll be glad to answer.
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> If anyone is looking for the source of q
On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:
If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already
provided an
explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum
events and
then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules
for
On 27 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jason,
>
> This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its
> logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible
> thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, p-zombie
> discussion
Now on to chapter 2 and it's really good as a popular science book - lively
and informative, and showing just how clever our ancestors were. Science as
a detective story is a very good analogy, of course, so that helps.
On 28 February 2014 12:12, LizR wrote:
> I have just received Max's book fr
On 26 Feb 2014, at 16:18, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws
in its logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by
physically impossible thought experiments such as the whole
interminable p-clone, p-zombie discussion on
I have just received Max's book from Amazon. I've read the first page or
two. So far he has been killed by a truck in (I think) 1975. I eagerly
await developments.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:09:42PM +0100, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
> While reading, do you get a sense that he points towards how this might
> potentially weaken digital physics/functionalism in their strong sense?
> That digital physics implies comp, which implies vast non computable part
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe",
> starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate:
>
> "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really
> wasn't specific to quan
On 27 February 2014 00:49, Jason Resch wrote:
> I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting
> on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate:
>
> "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really wasn't
> specific to quantum mec
b 2014 10:33:25 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 27 February 2014 02:49, Jason Resch wrote:
I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting on
page 194, which I think members of
On 27 February 2014 02:49, Jason Resch wrote:
I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting
> on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate:
>
Yes, a subset of me certainly does. Thanks.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Jason,
This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its
logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible
thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, p-zombie
discussion on this group.
First there is of course no physical mech
101 - 134 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
