On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge,
Why? On the contrary, beliefs can intersect truth, sometimes, and
provably so for simpler machine than us.
What happens is that only God knows when your beliefs are genuine
knowledge.
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just
marking the #s of your par-s into my short remarks.
#1
As long as we don't know ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff
we cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality',
An (ideal,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is
(presumably) quantum. But notice the limitation of quantum
computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to
specify its state, BUT
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
If an influence can go backward in time as well as forward then it
can effectively have FTL influence,
We already know for a fact that faster than light influences exist,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know
for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from
experiment that Bell's inequality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:28:50PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thanks (for Edgar). The guy deriving space from time is Allen
Francom. You might google on FOAR time space Allen Francom,
perhaps. I guess he discusses this on other lists too. He wrote
papers on that subject.
I'm not aware
On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly
does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something
fundamental?
Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very important.
In
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go...
The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some idea
of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to know if
there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a
development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on.
Getting
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one
On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:13, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment
from this debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes.
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your
complete lack of understanding of the theory...
Well, this one is at least a few hundred years old: You disagree only
because it is obvious
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Hi John,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and
Membranes) I
know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
approval
on NEW ideas that do not fit into the
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear
and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on
Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between
consciousness ITSELF and the contents of consciousness that become
conscious by
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite
clear
Interesting!
Samiya
On 31-Dec-2013, at 8:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on
Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish
One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one
word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again.
I have been a member of the Extropian List for many years and at the
beginning of the year it is my habit to send a message to that list
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On
Not at all!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:11 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
...or am I???
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism
Jason,
As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why
clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which
the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet up again. SR
(actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.
The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
Dear Edgar,
I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
Stephen,
No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
understand the concept of the Surprise
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
1. Nonlocal influences
There are not at least two there are exactly two, but yes, things might
not be local.
2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is no faster than light influences in QM. You need to have an
explicit physical collapse to have that. In the MW, the non locality is
only apparent.
So it's all only apparent. I hate it when people say X is a
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.
Not quite, it might not explain much but at least the Everything happens
theory doesn't make the problem worse. The everything happens because God
made things that way
Hi Edgar,
Wheeler shows how it is possible to obtain an emergent world from
interactions between observers. It seems that I might have the exactly
title of the paper wrong!
Please read this! You will see the relevance immediately!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why
clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which
the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
1. Nonlocal influences
There are not at least two there are exactly two, but
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they
share the same common present moment?
Standing? Well then the answer is no, not if one
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen
On 31 Dec 2013, at 18:24, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is no faster than light influences in QM. You need to have
an explicit physical collapse to have that. In the MW, the non
locality is only apparent.
So it's all
Jason,
Correct on your last point. Without the twins being in the exact same
actual present moment there would be no way for them to shake hands and
compare watches, specifically their watches that show different clock
times. Their Present time is simultaneous but their clock times aren't. The
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense
of computations.
The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
conscious,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:01 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one
word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again.
I have been a member of the Extropian List for many years and
Dear Edgar,
You are making a claim without support. Can you explain a mechanism that
generates the occurrence of the content of the computations. Bruno and
Wheeler do. I am much more Happy with Wheeler's explanation involving
interactions, but he does not explain observers. Bruno does give us a
Dear Bruno,
Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? If we follow Wheeler's
reasoning there is no such thing!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious
Dear Bruno,
I really do appreciate the details!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.
?
I answered no to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any way from belief
(assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in the world those beliefs are true,
but this you can never
On 12/31/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) quantum. But
notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N
Dear Liz: you wrote in your PS: epitheton is itself an ornamental
epitheton, I'd say. I do hope it wasn't just a typo!
I looked up epitheton and found (German) vocabulary meanings without any
hint to an ornamental nature.
In a Google English translational part it appeared as EPITHET with the
On 1 January 2014 02:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Hi John,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and
Membranes) I
know the difficulties one can run into if
On 12/31/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A entire parallel universe as big as our own that you can never go to or even see is
about as far from being local as you can get.
Differentiation/splitting of universes is a local phenomenon. It is not instantaneous
at all.
In an EPR experiment
On 1 January 2014 03:22, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear
and
On 12/31/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless
AH, but last year there was one less heading on your message!
Have happy (and pedantic) new year :-)
On 1 January 2014 05:01, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one
word. One year from now I intend to send this same
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?
Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last
Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this
- avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face
of all the evidence,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I sorta like the MWI but apparently you are not a fan because if what
you say is true then the MWI is dead wrong.
Explain why the following table shows that MWI is local, and realistic
on the wave function and
On 1 January 2014 04:09, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book
on Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between
consciousness ITSELF
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does fundamental
level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Fundamental is often used in
On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't
observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling
and we know that we know (although not as such).
Here I use comp +
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do
you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?
Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced that Everett's
MWI is the last
On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?
Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but
Hi Brent,
It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math'
-Physics' - ...
The knowledge evolves in time.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12/31/2013 5:55 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Hi John,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and
Membranes) I
know the difficulties one
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
I sorta like the MWI but apparently you are not a fan because if what
you say is true then the MWI is dead wrong.
Explain why the following
Hi Edgar,
Here's a question for you. Imagine a newborn baby, but a la The Matrix, you
substitute computer-generated sense information for his actual senses,
using a neural jack type of interface. Does the baby grow up conscious? It
seems that your answer for that would have to be no.
Terren
On 12/31/2013 7:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on Reality
here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between consciousness
ITSELF and the contents of
On 12/31/2013 8:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
SR (actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to relative
accelerations) explains perfectly why clock times can end up non-simultaneous
Again you betray you lack of comprehension of relativity theory. The difference in proper
Dear Edgar, you use words in your nicely flowing text that raise questions
in my 'mind'(?) while reading them.
*Consciousness ITSELF?* what may be your take on consciousness (not
itself)? I mean: the term Ccness as used by diverse authors in diverse
contexts applied to their ways of thinking. (As
On 12/31/2013 9:54 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
There are at least two
Liz, et al,
I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my
business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just
responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or
those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the
Dear John, Please don't consider me an opponent. I merely call them how I
see them, and expect others to do likewise. I have often been wrong and
accepted that fact (and I expect others to (occasionally) do the same). I
only come to the conclusion slowly and reluctantly and after thorough
testing
On 1 January 2014 12:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Mark A. Rubinhttp://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Rubin_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079v1),
last revised 10 May 2001 (this version, v2))
Bell's theorem depends crucially on
On 1 January 2014 12:09, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz, et al,
I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my
business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just
responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or
those
Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response
is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too
difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical
beauty).
Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate,
or do you honestly not see
On 1 January 2014 13:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do
On 12/31/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 12:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Mark A. Rubin http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Rubin_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079v1),
last
Liz,
It's easy to demonstrate that consciousness is NOT its contents by the
simple mental exercise of meditation in which the contents of consciousness
are diminished to the point of vanishing. The more consciousness is emptied
of individual contents, the clearer and brighter it becomes.
On 12/31/2013 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
I don't know about the SBI, unless I know it under a different name - please
explain?
The subjective Bayesian interpretation is what Jason dismisses as don't ask. It's the
interpretation advocated by Asher Peres (who's excellent textbook is available
On 1 January 2014 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
It's easy to demonstrate that consciousness is NOT its contents by the
simple mental exercise of meditation in which the contents of consciousness
are diminished to the point of vanishing. The more consciousness is emptied
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?) indicating
that we can never know the thing in itself only our interpretation of it.
(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)
On 1 January 2014 14:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 12:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Mark A. Rubinhttp://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Rubin_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1
Dear LizR,
Indeed! The observation of ultra high energy gamma rays that traveled a
long long way ... no dependence seen between energy and velocity...
My thought was to replace the single IceCube or FishBowl of space-time
with many; one per observer with a composition rule for observers
88 matches
Mail list logo
