Hi Richard ,
I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu.
(At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram)
And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an
illusion.
Interesting.
However, I am also a physicist and my string
Yeah and a chicken is a dog.
Le 29 oct. 2013 03:41, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com a écrit :
So matter is just maya-illusion.
That is really religion- right?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
On 28 Oct 2013, at 20:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that
you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the
machine that computes because they are
On 29 Oct 2013, at 03:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:
So matter is just maya-illusion.
Yes. That's the result. UDA shows that if we can survive with a
digital brain, by virtue of its infomation handling power (and not
some magic), then matter is only appearance in the mind of some
Bruno,
I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu.
(At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram)
And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an
illusion.
However, I am also a physicist and my string cosmology goes against my
2013/10/29 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno,
I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu.
(At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram)
And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an
illusion.
However, I am also a
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are
So matter is just maya-illusion.
That is really religion- right?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you
can derive it from PA, nor that
Try changing directions now. Here's a hint:
Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield earth, water, fire, and sky people
from the planet with no green left without the singular solution.
I can't help thinking is pinking the blank slate magazines of red books of
communal baths with gladiators and
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday
-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
** **
** **
On 23 Oct 2013, at 02
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...*
***
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR
, 2013 9:50 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I missed that 10
, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I missed
:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
** **
** **
On 23 Oct
@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
** **
** **
On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote
[mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
** **
** **
On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist
hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and 2) the hypothesis that the
universe is the product of some program.
2) implies 1)
but
1) implies
] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
**
** **
Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in
philosophy of mind
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
The galaxy is probably 30 bn light years away NOW (leaving aside exactly
what now means cosmologically) but we see its image from when it was 13 bn
light years away. In the intervening 13bn
[
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...*
***
** **
** **
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15
?
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 6:43 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 10/21/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability
of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is
most likely a model construct, rather than
On 21 Oct 2013, at 22:56, LizR wrote:
...these are a few of my favourite things!
In the 12/10/13 issue of New Scientist, in an article entitled
All or nothing? I read that certain aspects of the behaviour of
[high temperature superconductors] are much easier to capture using
the
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that
definitive -
granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive?
It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20
(and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not.
Cheers,
Chris
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: String theory and superconductors
reconfirmed or not.
Cheers,
Chris
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids
All of that is based on the Maldacena Conjecture and the viscosity of the
quark-gluon pasma as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
...these are a few of my favourite things!
In the 12/10/13 issue of New
On 10/21/2013 5:12 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive
that you will find information processing at the root of everything.
Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford
On so many levels the universe appears to operate at
On 22 October 2013 14:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/21/2013 5:12 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
“Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing
it’s suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of
everything.”
Vlatko Vedral,
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Given the newsworthiness of such a discovery, and the fact that I've
never
heard of the Hannover signal until now, indicates perhaps not.
That's not proof, of course :).
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:12:52PM -0700, Chris
@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 5:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Given the newsworthiness of such a discovery, and the fact that I've
never
heard of the Hannover
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive -
granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive?
It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside
fundamental particles!
On 22
On 10/21/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability
of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is
most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something
physical out there.
They are all models,
]
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 6:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 10/21/2013 5:12 PM, Chris de Morsella
39 matches
Mail list logo
