On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
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?)
I think that's what science has taught metaphysics. We make up
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
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
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just
one point and when a measurement is performed it projects
On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?
OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.
But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes 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 can
Dear Stephen,
On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
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
On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09, meekerdb 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
On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
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
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:58, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math' -
Physics' - ...
That spiral too in the UD*, but the Brent's circles also. Without any
paradox involved. Note
On 01 Jan 2014, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 9:54 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
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
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb 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 you honestly not see the
On 01 Jan 2014, at 09:34, meekerdb wrote:
But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are
near opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their
measurements. They are then already moving apart faster than c and
will never be able to communicate - with each other,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and neutrons
of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light.
Dear Bruno,
I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
us a 3p.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
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,
Dear Stephen,
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the
other which will give us a 3p.
That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How does it emerge?
The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.
I see this
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and
On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece
of the UD work.
Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states
corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite? Isn't
Edgar,
I believe I may understand your point about a universal present, but it is
something relativity handles, as far as I can see, without having to
postulate anything new. Anything having the same (x, y, z, t) coordinates
can interact, where t is coordinate time. It seems like you believe
On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and
induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and
G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.
As an analysis of
On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
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
35 minute talk. Supporting slide-show from Chernobyl/Fukushima research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAJnIxQgxU
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 31 Dec 2013, at
On 2 January 2014 09:15, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar,
I believe I may understand your point about a universal present, but it is
something relativity handles, as far as I can see, without having to
postulate anything new. Anything having the same (x, y, z, t) coordinates
On 1/1/2014 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?)
indicating that
we can never
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union
of the finite piece of the UD work.
Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the
number of UD states
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing
in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look
inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth
about
36 matches
Mail list logo
