On 09 Jan 2014, at 20:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
Receiving a prosthetic brain is a (probably insurmountable)
technical problem. There could certainly be one functionally
equivalent to mine but it wouldn't be mine because it wouldn't have
the exact same history. If it did it would
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
There is an interdependency that should not be ignored between the
objects that express the quantities and relations that are
represented by the logic and arithmetic. A universe that does not
contain any persistent entities
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unit
conversion factor between the + and - signature terms. It's
On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the
This is a fascinating but difficult subject - is being or becoming more
mysterious? In a way becoming is stranger than positing something that is
merely eternally there, perhaps from logical necessity. It's hard for us as
time-bound beings to imagine a block universe - or multiverse - although
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:34, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
(Unless comp is false or that we are manipulated through a normal
simulation).
Physics is transformed into the study of a lawful precise
arithmetical phenomenon of a type
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
This is precisely why it is impossible to exactly clone a mind.
Then comp, in the very weak sense of the existence of a substitution
level, is false, but then the mind is infinite and reality is
infinite, contradicting your claim
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on
it. After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from
moment to moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the
'same' person, but I'm still
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:16, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
There is no single observer that can take in all events I
never said that and don't believe it.
However there has to be a single universal processor cycling for a
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:22, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists.
So existence implies computability? Computability theory exists
because we can distinguish existence from
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, there is not a single universal processor, there is a single
processor CYCLE. All information states are effectively their own
processors, so the computational universe consists of myriads of
processors, as many as there are
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor computing
the state of the universe. In fact there is no such universe. The
universe is an appearance emerging, from below the substitution level, on
all
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:53, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What
more convincing proof could there be?
One that
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show
it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done.
?
If you even assume a computational universe in the first place you
have to assume (you are assuming) that
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can understand, once cleared from
arithmetic-logic-metaphysic
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:38, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show
it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even
assume a computational universe in the first
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can understand,
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does
or doesn't do...
But then, please, define your comp. my comp is only a very weak form
of computationalism; which implies all the know standard form of comp.
I am still
OK, John. I was aware that you took some distance with Rosen anti-
mechanism. Rosen made good points, but is unaware that the machines
agree with such points. It is related with the fact that the first
person associated to a machine, does not feel at all like being a
machine, nor even
On 10 Jan 2014, at 04:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
Your error here is assuming the computations take place in a single
wide physical dimensional space. They don't. They take place in a
purely computational space prior to the existence of physical
dimensional spacetime. Physical
On 10 Jan 2014, at 04:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it
actually applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational
reality for the time being at least...
But, please, define it. Nobody has the slightest idea of what you
On 10 Jan 2014, at 09:58, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:34, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor
computing the state of the universe. In fact there is no such
universe. The universe is an appearance emerging, from below
On 09 Jan 2014, at 20:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Bruno:
Sorry but I do not understood point seven when I read it and I do not
understand you now.
No problem. I am here to explain (or discover a flaw!).
I understand Solomonoff theorem about inductive inference that involve
infinite
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:43, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered,
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that
Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be
small and finite.
The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then
you also get an infinite number of computers built by aliens in
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but
only for a particular point of view. So I, Terren, experience one and only
one physics, because my consciousness is the selection criteria among the
infinity of computations going through my state. But what about
Dear Terren,
Good question! I ask that you take what you wrote and add the following
question: How do Glak and Terren Communicate?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the UDA, as
it may betray a misunderstanding on my part. But if that's not the case,
then it seems to me that I could never communicate with Glak because our
consciousnesses are selecting different universes within the
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I never claimed Liouville's theorem was a fundamental law of physics in
itself,
Good, I agree.
rather it is derivable as a mathematical consequence of certain features
of the fundamental laws.
And of the initial conditions!
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and relistic
if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so how can realism
hold? How can the outcome of a coin flip today have a
On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King
On 10 Jan 2014, at 16:23, Jason Resch wrote:
Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be
small and finite.
OK.
The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then
you
Dear Terren,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the UDA, as
it may betray a misunderstanding on my part.
I agree, interaction and the question of different physical laws
Stephen,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Terren,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Terren Suydam
terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the UDA, as
it may
On 10 Jan 2014, at 17:57, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined -
but only for a particular point of view.
Yes, but it is a very general one. It is the particular view of any
(universal) machine. It has to be the same for any
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
As you've explained it above your theory makes a rock just as conscious as
a brain. I'm
sure you must have a more subtle theory than that, so I'll ask you the
same thing I asked
Bruno, if I make a robot what do I have to do
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I never claimed Liouville's theorem was a fundamental law of physics in
itself,
Good, I agree.
rather it is derivable as a mathematical consequence of
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists,
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the
UDA, as it may betray a misunderstanding on my part. But if that's
not the case, then it seems to me that I could never communicate
Dear Jason,
Could you elaborate on how a simulation of Stephen and Glak is related to
the 1p of Stephen and Glak. There is some ambiguity as to the relation
between the 1p view (via a simulation) that Thon would have and the 3p view
idea. I really think that the 3p concept is deeply
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so
On 11 January 2014 04:23, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be small
and finite.
Ah, yes, I think you're right. One of Bruno's steps is to imagine a
On 11 January 2014 06:06, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Terren,
Good question! I ask that you take what you wrote and add the following
question: How do Glak and Terren Communicate?
It's a good question, all right - I suspect the answer is that they can't.
Which
On 1/10/2014 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
There is an interdependency that should not be ignored between the objects that
express the quantities and relations that are represented by the logic and arithmetic.
A universe that
On 11 January 2014 06:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so how
On 1/10/2014 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 08:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic
On 1/10/2014 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor computing
the state
of the universe. In fact there is no such universe. The universe is an
On 1/10/2014 8:57 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but only for a
particular point of view. So I, Terren, experience one and only one physics, because my
consciousness is the selection criteria among the infinity of computations
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM predict a infinite small
probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of
them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but
yours.
QM predict all this by using comp, or an unintelligible dualist theory of
Dear LizR,
I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood. Let
me state it crudely: Given the infinite number of possible 1p content that
the UD can run, how do we obtain from the UDA or UD or UD* the situation
that we believe to be true: that there exists a space-time
Dear Brent,
Vaughn Pratt's dualist theory is consistent with QM and does show a
mechanism that prohibits White Rabbits. It is intelligible to anyone that
puts forth the effort to comprehend it.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM,
Dear Brent,
ISTM that your characterization of Terren's question could be analyzed in
terms of Boltzmann brains and continuations between BBs. No?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 8:57 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
It seems that the UDA
On 1/10/2014 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what about Glak, a being in an alternative physics?
If Glak mind obeys to the laws of Boole, and if Glak as a finite body, and if he is
self-referentially correct, then we share with Glak the same sigma_1 true sentences, and
he figures it out
Dear Brent!
Indeed! A theory that explains everything must be more than a list of
tautologies!
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what about Glak, a being in an alternative physics?
If Glak mind obeys
On 11 January 2014 07:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 17:57, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but
only for a particular point of view.
Yes, but it is a very general one. It is the particular
On 11 January 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor
computing the state of the universe. In fact there is no such
On 11 January 2014 11:20, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood.
Let me state it crudely: Given the infinite number of possible 1p content
that the UD can run, how do we obtain from the UDA or UD
Sorry typo that should be GRB not BRB!
On 11 January 2014 12:36, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 11:20, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood.
Let me state it crudely: Given the
Dear LizR,
The paper (that I can't seem to find at the moment) that I am using as a
reference takes into account other sources of variation in arrival times,
for example that the gamma rays where not simultaneously emitted, and looks
also at the dispersal of the individual polarizations of the
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple example is
arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is computable (this is provable if you accept
the Church Turing thesis).
But it's questionable whether it exists.
Brent
--
On 11 January 2014 12:46, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The paper (that I can't seem to find at the moment) that I am using as
a reference takes into account other sources of variation in arrival times,
for example that the gamma rays where not
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is computable (this is
provable if you accept the Church
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
(notwithstanding Bruno's comments) that mine and Glak's worlds would be
separated as a result of the measure of stable continuations of those
worlds... or were you making a different point?
Terren
On Jan 10, 2014 5:13 PM, meekerdb
Dear Terren,
Yes, it is about the continuations and measures thereof. I am not having
much luck discovering how the measures are defined.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
Yeah, if there's one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to me,
that's it - how an infinity of emulations condense into a single
conscious experience.
Terren
On Jan 10, 2014 8:04 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Terren,
Yes, it is about the continuations
On 11 January 2014 14:02, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
(notwithstanding Bruno's comments) that mine and Glak's worlds would be
separated as a result of the measure of stable continuations of those
worlds... or were
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if there's one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to me,
that's it - how an infinity of emulations condense into a single
conscious experience.
If they're identical, I guess you wouldn't be able to tell the
On 1/10/2014 2:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Vaughn Pratt's dualist theory is consistent with QM and does show a mechanism that
prohibits White Rabbits. It is intelligible to anyone that puts forth the effort to
comprehend it.
Can you summarize it?
Brent
--
You received
On 1/10/2014 9:43 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and relistic
if time
symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical
I'm not sure what time is
On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
As you've explained it above your theory makes a rock just as conscious as
a brain.
I'm
sure you must have a more subtle theory than that, so I'll ask you the same
thing I
On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
Could you elaborate on how a simulation of Stephen and Glak is
related to the 1p of Stephen and Glak.
The simulation provides a consistent continuation path for your first
person view. In
Lol! So that explains it.
On Jan 10, 2014 8:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:02, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
(notwithstanding Bruno's comments) that mine and Glak's worlds would be
If they're all truly identical then yes, it's much easier to see how it
could be experienced as a single consciousness.
But what precisely does it mean for an infinity of computations to go
through my state? How precisely is my state specified? Imagine you have
two computations that essentially
On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
example is
arithmetic. Only a very tiny
On 1/10/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if there's one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to me,
that's it -
how an infinity of emulations condense into a single conscious
On 11 January 2014 15:57, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
If they're all truly identical then yes, it's much easier to see how it
could be experienced as a single consciousness.
But what precisely does it mean for an infinity of computations to go
through my state? How precisely
On 11 January 2014 16:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
example is
On 11 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if there's one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to me,
that's it - how an infinity of emulations condense
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of
On 1/10/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM,
On 11 January 2014 17:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM,
On 1/10/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/10/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if
Dear Brent,
I will try a crude summary and hope to not be misunderstood... It starts
with the Stone duality, a well known isomorphism between Boolean algebras
and totally disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces. The former are
identified with minds (logical, computational, numerical, etc) and the
On 1/10/2014 9:05 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I will try a crude summary and hope to not be misunderstood... It starts with the
Stone duality, a well known isomorphism between Boolean algebras and totally
disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces. The former are identified with
Dear Brent,
Hmm? Steven turns into a White Rabbit is not a *logical* contradiction,
it's a *nomological* one. If there's a transition from (t1,x1) to (t2,x2)
it seems the only *logical* contradiction would be x2=Not x1 at t1.
Logical is a very weak condition; as far as I know it just means
On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
There is an interdependency that should not be ignored between
the objects that express the quantities and relations that are
On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR
On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor
computing the state of the universe. In fact there is no such
universe. The universe
Dear Bruno,
You wrote: Comp does not predict the existence of the moon, but should
predict the physical laws, that is, what is invariant for all
observers/machines.
That is the same as my definition of a reality for *all*
observers/machines!
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal
Wait, Brent may have written that and I missattributed the quote.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote: Comp does not predict the existence of the moon, but
should predict the physical laws, that is, what is invariant
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM predict a infinite small
probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of
them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but
yours.
QM predict all this by using comp,
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*, which
from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the 1p delay
invariance.
The UD never stops. If a process lasts forever, it is eternal, then it
does not ever complete and thus its results never
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:23, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Vaughn Pratt's dualist theory is consistent with QM and does show
a mechanism that prohibits White Rabbits. It is intelligible to
anyone that puts forth the effort to comprehend it.
There is no FPI in Pratt, no 1p/3p
98 matches
Mail list logo
