On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Jesse,
Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as
meaning some y subset Y identified by some function i
On 5/29/2012 11:52 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:11 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote:
The original poster introduces what free will means.
1) Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice or a
determinate one.
2) If human free will choice exists, it is agreed that it is not
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin
aaloks...@gmail.com mailto:aaloks...@gmail.com wrote:
It is impossible to consider common properties of
On 5/30/2012 1:25 AM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote:
5) If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is
prohibited in physics.
Rubbish!
I insist on my statement which, unfortunately, is not understood. I
stop taking part in the discussion.
Best wishes
Ale
OK.
--
On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won
a price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state
law forbid annihilation of
On 29 May 2012, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 1:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won
a price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But
On 30 May 2012, at 08:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is impossible to consider
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning
some
On 30 May 2012 04:16, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
I think that the word free means that it is unconstrained by a pre-given
or knowable function; it is not the result of a known computational process.
I'm sorry if my point was not clear. I simply meant that we can
define
On 30 May 2012 04:41, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Only David Nyman agreed as far as I can see
See my reply to Stephen.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 5/30/2012 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2012, at 08:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/30/2012 12:06 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 8:47 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/29/2012 5:18 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin
aaloks...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 29, 2012 Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.com wrote:
The original poster introduces what free will means.
Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice
OK, In other words it had no cause.
or a determinate one.
In other words it had a cause.
If human free
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:28 AM, alexalex alexmka...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello!
Just watched this google presentation done by a software engineer that
has done lots of reading on QM and QIT. He practically says that
entanglement is akin to measurement and he presents a experiment (not
On 5/29/2012 11:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The point is is that what ever the choice is, there are ab initio alternatives that
are not exactly known to be optimal solutions to some criterion and some
not-specified-in-advance function that picks one.
??? The function is specified in
On 5/30/2012 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 May 2012, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 1:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To see this the following thought experience can help.
On 5/30/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Banach and Tarski proved an amazing theorem with the axiom of choice, but it is not a
paradox, in the sense that it contradicts nothing, and you can't get anything from it.
Bruno
It contradicts intuition.
Brent
--
You received this message because
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The axiom of choice is not a physical law.
That is true, but it is consistent with empirical physical evidence about
how the universe works. In non-mathematical language the Axiom of Choice
says that every event need not have an
What about Gabriel's Horn or the Koch Snowflake curve?
They may also contradict intuition but the results are not dependent upon
the axiom of choice.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/30/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Banach and Tarski proved an
On May 28, 1:40 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Did I ever once say that free will means acting for no reason?
That is a very hard question to answer, you said that people don't do
things for a reason
On 5/30/2012 9:31 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The axiom of choice is not a physical law.
That is true, but it is consistent with empirical physical evidence about how the
universe works. In non-mathematical
On 30 May 2012, at 16:29, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:28 AM, alexalex alexmka...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hello!
Just watched this google presentation done by a software engineer that
has done lots of reading on QM and QIT. He practically says that
entanglement is akin to
On 30 May 2012, at 18:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2012 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 May 2012, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 1:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To see this the following thought
On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to have
dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you want an
computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control real
world
On May 29, 1:45 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So which of the following four link(s) in the logical chain do you take
issue with?
A. human brain (and body) comprises matter and energy
So does a cadaver's brain and body. The fact that a cadaver is not
intelligent should show us
2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to
have
dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you want an
computational AI to interact
On May 30, 4:36 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to
have
dinner in a virtual paris if
2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On May 30, 4:36 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You always put that level confusion on the table.
On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
whole point is that there
Craig,
You mentioned that you can open a remote desktop connection from a
virtualized computer to a real computer (or even the one running the
virtualization).
This, as Quentin mentioned, requires an interface. In this case it is
provided by the virtual network card made available to the
2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
Matrix, why would there be any kind of
30 matches
Mail list logo
