On 13 Dec 2013, at 23:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated?
?
If I (third person self-reference) is
On 12 Dec 2013, at 22:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Please tell me if above helped.
Richard: Yes. Very much so. We being celestial, divine creatures,
if you want. We (first person) are already in heaven, or
Platonia, is completely consistent with my thinking
OK.
Bruno: To get
On 12 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: If our subst level is far above the quantum level, then QM
can still be derivable from arithmetic, but some constants can be
geographical (and thus variable in the whole of the physical reality).
Richard: Astronomical
Bruno: Where do that [Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds] comes from?
Richard: There are the most immediate consequence of all string theories
where the extra dimensions beyond 4D spacetime must precipitate out of 3D
space.
Harvard physics Prof. Vafa describes the Big Bang as 2 dimensions folding
up
Bruno: Why do you want emulate RA? Simple animals emulates RA, billiard
ball, Gàc gas, your computer, yourself, all emulate RA.
Richard: I am proposing that the finite 3D array of 10^90/cc compact space
particles are a computer for implementing RA.
I must have used the word emulation improperly.
On 13 Dec 2013, at 13:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Why do you want emulate RA? Simple animals emulates RA,
billiard ball, Gàc gas, your computer, yourself, all emulate RA.
Richard: I am proposing that the finite 3D array of 10^90/cc compact
space particles are a computer for
On 13 Dec 2013, at 13:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Why do you want emulate RA? Simple animals emulates RA, billiard
ball, Gàc gas, your computer, yourself, all emulate RA.
Richard: I am proposing that the finite 3D array of 10^90/cc compact space
particles are a computer for implementing
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated? Could not just finite
portions of some universe be simulated, that which is perceived by the
observers (however such might be defined). Why does it seem that a god's
eye view needs to be simulated? BTW, David Albert's argument
2013/12/13 Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated?
It does not... it is an example showing that the substitution level could
be arbitrarily low... anyway as I said some years ago, if the level is that
low, I don't see how
On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated?
?
If I (third person self-reference) is Turing emulable, then the
entire universe is certainly not emulable, nor even well definable.
Could not just finite portions of
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated?
?
If I (third person self-reference) is Turing emulable, then the entire
universe is certainly not
I must admit I'm more likely to say yes if the Doctor in question is Matt
Smith :)
On 14 December 2013 11:09, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi
On 11 Dec 2013, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: but the human will say yes to the doctor anyway, and
without thinking to much
on the theoretical consequences of the possible survival.
Richard: I would always say no to the doctor because of the no-
cloning theorem.
The goal
On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:18, LizR wrote:
ISTM that Yes Doctor sums up comp. If a digital brain made below
my substitution level can substitute for my organic one, then I
literally have a 50% chance of waking up as the digital version.
However if the Subst Level is quantum, no cloning stops
Bruno: So, indeterminacy, non-locality, and non-cloning, are,
qualitatively, consequence of the comp hypothesis.
[if the sub level is above the quantum level, which you say is empirically
likely]
Richard: So if non-cloning is a consequence of comp, how is duplication
possible?
I read your
On 11 Dec 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
Yes - to the doctor? I was always kept aback from agreeing, because
I still believe to have included M O R E in my mind
(brainfunctions, as you say) then whatever that good doctor and his
device may supply.
You have to assumed that there
On 11 Dec 2013, at 21:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/11/2013 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:20, George wrote:
Hi List
I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I thought you
might be interested in this article from the Science Daily on line
magazine
Neural
On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:00, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: So, indeterminacy, non-locality, and non-cloning, are,
qualitatively, consequence of the comp hypothesis.
[if the sub level is above the quantum level, which you say is
empirically likely]
Richard: So if non-cloning is a consequence
On 12/12/2013 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
2) the lower level: the description of the Heisenberg matrix state of the entire
(quantum observable) state of the entire local cluster of galaxies, (including dark
matter!) and all this at the level of the right fields, or at the level of elementary
On 12 Dec 2013, at 19:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/12/2013 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
2) the lower level: the description of the Heisenberg matrix state
of the entire (quantum observable) state of the entire local
cluster of galaxies, (including dark matter!) and all this at the
level of
Bruno: Please tell me if above helped.
Richard: Yes. Very much so. We being celestial, divine creatures, if you
want. We (first person) are already in heaven, or Platonia, is
completely consistent with my thinking
Bruno: To get non-comp, you need to install some function, which should
be shown
Bruno: If our subst level is far above the quantum level, then QM can still
be derivable from arithmetic, but some constants can be geographical (and
thus variable in the whole of the physical reality).
Richard: Astronomical observations/measurements of the structure constant
across nearly the
On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:20, George wrote:
Hi List
I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I thought you
might be interested in this article from the Science Daily on line
magazine
Neural Prosthesis Restores Behavior After Brain Injury
Yes, things progress. Nice to hear of
Bruno: but the human will say yes to the doctor anyway, and without
thinking to much
on the theoretical consequences of the possible survival.
Richard: I would always say no to the doctor because of the no-cloning
theorem.
I read your recent paper where you discuss how comp circumvents that
On 12/11/2013 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:20, George wrote:
Hi List
I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I thought you might be interested in
this article from theScience Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/ on line magazine
Neural Prosthesis Restores
*Yes - to the doctor?* I was always kept aback from agreeing, because I
still believe to have included M O R E in my mind (brainfunctions, as you
say) then whatever that good doctor and his device may supply. So I
consider a mechanical substitution to the 'living' (what is it?)
capabilities a
ISTM that Yes Doctor sums up comp. If a digital brain made below my
substitution level *can* substitute for my organic one, then I literally
have a 50% chance of waking up as the digital version.
However if the Subst Level is quantum, no cloning stops it being actually
possible. Although in this
On 12/11/2013 1:18 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM that Yes Doctor sums up comp. If a digital brain made below my substitution level
/can/ substitute for my organic one, then I literally have a 50% chance of waking up as
the digital version.
However if the Subst Level is quantum, no cloning stops it
On 12 December 2013 11:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2013 1:18 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM that Yes Doctor sums up comp. If a digital brain made below my
substitution level *can* substitute for my organic one, then I literally
have a 50% chance of waking up as the digital
On 12 December 2013 11:53, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2013 11:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2013 1:18 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM that Yes Doctor sums up comp. If a digital brain made below my
substitution level can substitute for my organic one, then I
Hi List
I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I thought you might
be interested in this article from theScience Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ on line magazine
Neural Prosthesis Restores Behavior After Brain Injury
On 11 December 2013 06:20, George gl...@quantics.net wrote:
Hi List
I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I thought you might be
interested in this article from the Science Daily on line magazine
Neural Prosthesis Restores Behavior After Brain Injury
George Levy
The rat has
32 matches
Mail list logo
