On 29 Mar 2014, at 10:24, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 29 March 2014 19:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2014 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 15:55, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
Is electron position a continuous observable? Even if it is and
there are
an infinity of brains,
On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A functionalist could agree that a computer can replicate his
consciousness but it would not really be him. There is
On 29 March 2014 19:27, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be');
wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be');
wrote:
On 27
This is fabulous (in places - some bits make me feel a bit sick)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuecSLLXTYM
This is like the one Bruno posted, but on hyperdrive...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohzJV980PIQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohzJV980PIQ
This second one zooms to 10^1000 - which
On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/27/2014 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 23:33, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 21:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 23:26, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 10:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unless you allow brains to grow infinitely big, there are only a
finite number
On 27 Mar 2014, at 17:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/27/2014 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The actual theory of consciousness doesn't make any difference here.
The claim that the copy isn't really the same person is equivalent
to, and as absurd as, the claim that I'm not the same person after
On 28 Mar 2014, at 00:00, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 28 March 2014 09:51, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would say there is only a finite number of possible biological
human minds,
Because the number is limited
On 27 Mar 2014, at 15:55, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au
On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014, at 1:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 March 2014 18:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 13:47, Stathis Papaioannou
On 27 Mar 2014, at 23:37, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 23:42, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish
On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A functionalist could agree that a computer can replicate his
consciousness but it would not really be him. There is no explicit or
implicit position on personal identity in
On 29 March 2014 05:15, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014, at 00:00, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 28 March 2014 09:51, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say there is only a finite number of
On 26 Mar 2014, at 13:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far
higher than the Planck
On 26 Mar 2014, at 23:26, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 10:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unless you allow brains to grow infinitely big, there are only a
finite number of possible brains even in an infinite universe.
With sufficiently advanced technology (e.g.
On 27 March 2014 18:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 13:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering
On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 March 2014 18:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 13:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis
Citeren Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100,
On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:42, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM
On 3/27/2014 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The actual theory of consciousness doesn't make any difference here.
The claim that the copy isn't really the same person is equivalent to, and as absurd
as, the claim that I'm not the same person after a night's sleep.
I agree, but I think you are
On 3/27/2014 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The
On 28 Mar 2014, at 1:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 March 2014 18:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 13:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014,
On 27 March 2014 21:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 23:26, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 10:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you allow brains to grow infinitely big, there are only a finite
number of possible brains even in an infinite
On 27 March 2014 23:42, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at
On 28 March 2014 09:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2014 23:42, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2014 19:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish
On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say there is only a finite number of possible biological human
minds,
Because the number is limited by the Beckenstein bound if we assume
physical supervenience ?
but an infinite number of possible minds if you
On 28 March 2014 09:51, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say there is only a finite number of possible biological human
minds,
Because the number is limited by the Beckenstein bound if we assume
physical
On 28 March 2014 12:00, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 09:51, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say there is only a finite number of possible biological human
minds,
Because the
On 28 March 2014 10:16, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 12:00, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 09:51, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say there is only a finite number
On 26 Mar 2014, at 2:23 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:57, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at all. The conclusion
would still follow in a classical infinite universe.
I don't see that, because you
On 3/25/2014 9:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26
On 3/25/2014 11:06 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 2:23 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:57, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at
On 26 March 2014 16:55, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
But that's assuming you *don't* live forever, so you aren't answering
the other poster's comment.
Sure it does and I'm not assuming that. It makes no difference whether I
live forever or not.
That's quite an unusual
On 26 March 2014 17:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy
were needed, either at the quantum level or to an infinite number of
decimal places, then we could not
On 26 March 2014 22:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 17:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy
were needed, either at the quantum
2014-03-26 2:45 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and
2014-03-26 7:13 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 25 Mar 2014, at 21:31, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 06:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:24, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that
structure, that its
On 26 Mar 2014, at 00:12, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures,
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR
lizj...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lizj...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou
On 26 Mar 2014, at 02:23, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version,
making him either a coward, or an opportunist
On 26 Mar 2014, at 02:48, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:23:10 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared
statistically
interfere.
Eventually what you call this earth is a Moiré effect on infinitely
many computations under our substitution level, normally.
Bruno
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:56:21 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs
On 3/26/2014 2:38 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 17:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy
were
needed,
On 3/26/2014 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-03-26 2:45 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/26/2014 2:57 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-03-26 7:13 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far higher than
the Planck level) if we are to survive from moment to moment, and that
implies there are only a finite number of possible brains and hence mental
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far higher
than the Planck level) if we are to survive from moment to moment, and that
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:30:41AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far higher
On 27 March 2014 09:28, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, I agree. Survive isn't well defined at the quantum level. The
same kind of reasoning that leads people to say we're immortal, also
implies we're always dying.
As far as I can tell, quantum immortality requires that we are
On 27 March 2014 10:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you allow brains to grow infinitely big, there are only a finite
number of possible brains even in an infinite universe.
With sufficiently advanced technology (e.g. uploading yourself to a
digital brain), the upper
On 27 March 2014 11:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
infinitely big in either space or time ... - yes, well why not? We
consider Turing machines that can run for ever with a potentially
infinite tape.
I think infinite in time but not space implies a Nietzschean eternal
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:31:25AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 11:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
infinitely big in either space or time ... - yes, well why not? We
consider Turing machines that can run for ever with a potentially
infinite tape.
I think
On 27 March 2014 11:53, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:31:25AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 11:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
infinitely big in either space or time ... - yes, well why not? We
consider Turing
I agree that the MUH's predictions are a bit vague, there's the
continuing to find maths useful prediction and something about finding
ourselves in the most generic universe compatible with our existence, which
is not exactly easy to measure. But I guess this is going to be the case
for something
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:24, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the same
thing.
I can see the appeal. If the universe ever
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:57, LizR wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/24/2014 8:24 PM, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that
structure, that its physical
ever effect us.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:57:05 +1300
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/24/2014 8:24 PM, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say
On 25 Mar 2014, at 08:46, LizR wrote:
I agree that the MUH's predictions are a bit vague, there's the
continuing to find maths useful prediction and something about
finding ourselves in the most generic universe compatible with our
existence, which is not exactly easy to measure. But I
On 26 March 2014 06:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:24, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are
consequences such as
'immortality'. We're want something that can be measured.
From: stath...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:12:09 +1100
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness flits
about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does
On 3/25/2014 4:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*/I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a
mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version,
making him either a coward, or an opportunist or both. (Or under
influence, as it is easy to
On 26 March 2014 11:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to another and that as a consequence we are
immortal, so it does affect us even if there is no physical communication
between its
On 26 March 2014 13:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits
about from one copy of us to another and that as a
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:23:10 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version,
making him
On 26 March 2014 12:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 13:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1)
On 26 March 2014 14:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another
On 26 March 2014 14:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. Assuming that consciousness
arises somehow from the quantum state of your brain, and assuming that
identical quantum states
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 3/25/2014 6:49 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An
On 3/25/2014 6:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb
On 26 March 2014 14:57, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at all. The conclusion
would still follow in a classical infinite universe.
I don't see that, because you can subdivide classical states indefinitely
(hence the space-time
ended here on this earth, is not an effect on this
earth. Its as insignificant to this earth as things can be.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:56:21 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM
On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you
actually live forever.*
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one
thing it isn't is significant.
The continuation of an
stand point they simply do not exist relative to one another.
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:25:11 +1300
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:50, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb
On 26 Mar 2014, at 2:22 pm, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually
live forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing
it isn't is significant.
The continuation of
Original Message
Scott Aaronson reviews Max Tegmark's /Our Mathematical Universe/:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1753
The comments section includes Max Tegmark's remarks on Scott Aaronson's remarks, ending
for now with:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the same thing.
I can see the appeal. If the universe ever *does* prove to be isomorphic to
a mathematical
The comments section looks like a mini Everything list in itself.
On 25 March 2014 16:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and
On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/24/2014 8:24 PM, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the
physical universe and
one which is so far away that it couldn't ever effect us.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:57:05 +1300
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote
95 matches
Mail list logo
