On 01 Oct 2011, at 21:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Oct 2011, at 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The singularity is all the matter that there is, was, and will be,
but
it has no exterior - no cracks made of space or time, it's
On 01 Oct 2011, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2011 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Oct 2011, at 09:31, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:02:28PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. But note that in this case you are using the notion of 3-OM (or
computational state),
In David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity chapter 8, he criticises
Schmidhuber's Great Programmer idea by saying that it is giving up on
explanation in science, as the hardware on which the Great Program
runs is unknowable.
David, why do you say that? Surely, the question of what hardware is
Hi Russell,
On 02 Oct 2011, at 11:37, Russell Standish wrote:
In David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity chapter 8, he criticises
Schmidhuber's Great Programmer idea by saying that it is giving up on
explanation in science,
Actually I did address this point on the FOR list years ago.
Somehow,
On Oct 1, 8:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid the analogies you use don't help, at least for me. Does an
ion channel ever open in the absence of an observable cause? It's a
simple
On Oct 2, 5:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Oct 2011, at 21:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Oct 2011, at 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The singularity is all the matter that there is, was, and will be,
but
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 1, 8:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid the analogies you use don't help, at least for me. Does an
ion
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's a strange, almost paradoxical result but I think observer moments
can be sub-conscious. If we say the minimum duration of a conscious
moment is 100ms then 99ms and the remaining 1ms of this can occur at
different times,
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It's a strange, almost paradoxical result but I think observer moments
can be sub-conscious. If we say the minimum duration of a conscious
moment is 100ms then 99ms and the remaining 1ms of this can occur at
different
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A neuroscientist
would see neurons firing apparently for no reason, violating physical
laws.
Thoughts are
On 10/2/2011 7:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:01 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's a strange, almost paradoxical result but I think observer moments
can be sub-conscious. If we say the minimum duration of a conscious
moment is 100ms then 99ms and the
On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A neuroscientist
would see neurons firing apparently for no
On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 01:42:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Russell,
On 02 Oct 2011, at 11:37, Russell Standish wrote:
In David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity chapter 8, he criticises
Schmidhuber's Great Programmer idea by saying that it is giving up on
explanation in science,
You could simply point to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem which kind of
mandates that not everything in a universe is explicable from *within* that
universe. This is not to give up on explanation. This *is* the explanation. It
is neither good nor bad as an explanation - but it does require an
15 matches
Mail list logo
