On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the sense that a
computer can in theory do everything your brain can do is almost certainly
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:12, Terren Suydam wrote:
Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding
your own death, as there are no guarantees about the quality of the
surviving continuations. I remember Bruno saying once (paraphrasing)
consciousness is a prison.
Otto
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may
be comforting, but it's just superstition..
In your theory perhaps. But then my body is not Turing emulable.
Comp must be false.
There must be a living
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:28, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Wow, Liz, very sorry to hear about your friend. If you don't mind me
asking (and if you do mind, simply ignore my question), if you
magically just knew that the universe was in fact a large
computation engine where all possibilities are
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not
immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you
intervene repeatedly
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending dismissal in anyone
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s)
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:03, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Stephen -- I like how he derives the natural numbers from some basic
set operations on an empty set. One question though how does the
empty set itself arise.
Arithmetic is equivalent to finite set theory (hereditary finite set
theory,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not convinced, as I tend to not believe in any primitive time
and space, at least when I tend to believe in comp (of course I
*know* nothing).
QM is indeed reversible (in large part), but using this
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability
in arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than
us
What does same mean here. Same coupling constants?...same number
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
Glak
On 15 Jan 2014, at 23:30, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 10:27, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one
extent or another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding
the status of questions versus answers:
I tend not to consider that a brain is a digital computer. The most
accurate analogy is that a brain is a _program_ made of different
processes that run certain specific algorithms, some of them fixed and
certain of them capable of learning by various methods. And finally
some of them can execute
On 16 January 2014 18:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Colin, Liz,
What do you find wrong with what Dennett said?
I didn't actually say I found anything wrong with it, just that I would
expect him to want to drop the hard problem. I said that because he's
wanted to for decades
On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by
quantum events more clearly and succinctly.
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am
On 16 January 2014 19:00, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
One thing that this line of thinking that I am pursuing implies, is that
systems what have different computational capacities will have differing
realities. The best analogy/toy model to explain this is
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two emitters
with polarizers and a detector at which you post-select
On 16 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
On 16 January 2014 18:07, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
I came across that page of yours a few months ago through random
searching. (I forgot what I was searching for), but only later did I
realize it was your blog!
Out of curiosity, do you recall what the 2 other responses
On 16 January 2014 19:44, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
I totally agree with you that science, when you really start getting into
the implications of things like QM (and relativity for that matter),
provides some rather unsettling (and yet very exciting!) conclusions. And
There are an awful lot of hidden assumptions implied by that first explicit
assumption imagine a world in which everything is computational.
I've asked for clarification from Edgar, but I won't hold my breath while I
wait.
On 16 January 2014 22:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his 4 levels of the multiverse, I need to throw out this
question. Is it even possible, in principle, to physically traverse
into another universe, a
On 16 Jan 2014, at 08:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:20 PM, LizR wrote:
Ah, well, I would expect Dennett to say that!
On 16 January 2014 16:19, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote:
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25289
I think Dennett is right. As soon as we're
On 16 January 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
What is this world? What does it consist of? What is
On 16 Jan 2014, at 02:19, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Unless I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together,
of course.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? :-) Or indeed, if all of this self
stuff is really a very sophisticated mental model we run...
I've tried making that
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:32 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes, GR assumes smooth Riemannian manifolds. The mapping works
for them wonderfully. That fact was proven by the people that
discovered Fiber Bundles. The hard thing to grasp is how the
mapping
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:
So although the troll theory is tempting, because that is exactly
how trolls behave, I'm going to go for a bot instead. Someone
decided to write a programme which trots out a theory that doesn't
make sense, then
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:46, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI
about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous
(FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, I may have this wrong but it seems to me your
hyperdeterminism objection is an objection to block universes
generally. I can't see how the big crunch (or timelike infinity)
being a boundary condition
Thanks, SP. I guess I will just have to buck and be satisfied with one
universe. ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 7:54 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
Dear
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:02, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25377
Neil Gershenfeld
Physicist, Director, MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms; Author, FAB
Totally agree: He blames Turing and von Neumann
So do I.
He assumes both comp and weak materialism. In fact
Thanks, Liz. I am suspecting that Stargate or Sliders is not just around the
corner, then. Cancel my trip to Neverland then!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:05, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why
should particle properties conform to what a computer's random
number generator outputs, and then the digits of Pi, and then the
binary expansion of the square root of 2, all
On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the
Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the
sense that a
computer can in
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:14, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25336
Rodney A. Brooks
Roboticist; Panasonic Professor of Robotics (emeritus) , MIT;
Founder, Chairman CTO, Rethink Robotics; Author, Flesh and Machines
While we’re at it
Lots of good stuff in
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:19, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25289
Daniel C. Dennett
Philosopher; Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Co-
Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University; Author,
Intuition Pumps
And again
Cheers
Niloc
am
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:25, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the
internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is
crossing a line. I think you owe
Brent,
No, moving just means changing. Time most certainly changes, and if you
accept that time is a 4th-dimension (necessary if you accept SR and GR)
there can certainly be movement along the time axis...
We see the movement of time all the time and measure it with our clocks. I
hate to use
Brent,
Sure. So what? That's not inconsistent with everything being at one and
only one point of time as time continually moves. That is in fact what
proves that time moves.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:40:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/15/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Second,
Chris,
Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
'happening' drives it...
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On
Dear Bruno,
I would like to start a new thread to discuss the nature and existence of
the many non computational things that you have mentioned in your posts.
Could you find a few moments to write some remarks on these? In
particular I wonder if their proposed non-computability can be
Stephen,
Bruno and I agree on this one, our usually imagined space is completely a
construction of our minds. That is fundamental to my theory. I explain in
detail how it happens in my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from quantum computations if anyone cares to read it...
Jason,
This is only a problem if you don't understand that everything happens in
the present moment P-time. The clock times diverge in value but always in
the same present moment. There is no 'catching up' in p-time because
nothing ever leaves it no matter how fast or slow their clocks are
Dear Bruno,
Let me first say that I share your opinion of physicalism! As to the
empirical evidence of inorganic minds. What behavior should we look for? I
ask this with all seriousness, as I have been researching methods to detect
AGI (another way to denote inorganic minds) and have found that
On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the
Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the
sense
Dear Bruno,
Hear Hear! Dennett wants to be correct by making the Hard Problem go
away. that is the most lazy way of solving the problem: making a long
winded wand-waving argument that consciousness is an illusion and then
failing to explain the persistence of the stipulated illusion!
On Thu,
Stephen,
It's amazing how much your mouth has to move to tell me it's not moving!
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:55:09 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Bingo! You are correct. All motion in space-time is an illusion. The
ancient greeks figured that out already.
Dear Jason,
Could you be more specific about why you are skeptical of p-zombies? I
have my reasons to disbelieve in them, but I am curious as to your
reasoning.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
Dear Edgar,
How about this twist on your claim: Reality is isomorphic to the
computations and its dynamics (thermodynamics) drives it.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Chris,
Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:46, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at
MIRI about how to make an AI that
Stephen,
No, it's not static relations between numbers, it's an active computational
process.
If just static relations between numbers your mouth would just be hanging
open forever in the same look of shock...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:48:44 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL
observer has his OWN present moment time. You are trying to extend it to a
cosmic universal time which this argument doesn't address. That's the
second argument you referenced.
This argument demonstrates that for
On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
Could you be more specific about why you are skeptical of p-
zombies? I have my reasons to disbelieve in them, but I am curious
as to your reasoning.
Ask a zombie if it is conscious, and
Dear Edgar,
The universality of the first person experience of a flow of events
(what you denote as time) is addressed by Bruno's First Person
Indeterminism (FPI) concept. This universality cannot be said to allow for
a singular present moment for all observers such that they can have it in
Dear Jason,
I see a flaw in your argument.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
Could you be more specific about why you are skeptical of p-zombies? I
Stephen,
What is this magical FPI that tells us in this present moment that there is
no such present moment? What's the actual supposed proof?
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:17:31 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
The universality of the first person experience of
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It [entropy] is NOT the log of the number of ways a macro-state could
form. That would be ambiguous in any case (do different order of events
count as different ways?
Yes obviously.
the Boltzmann formula shows the
Dear Edgar,
I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal
present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read
it? It is impossible to define a clock on an infinitesimal region of
space-time thus it is impossible to define a present moment in a way
If any of you haven't seen it, you will likely be quite interesting the The
Edge's list of responses to this year's question, What scientific idea is
ready for retirement? Some of the answers are fascinating, some are
absurd, and some are confusing. Take a look!
Do you have an explanation for why reality time computes fewer moments
for someone accelerating than someone at rest?
Jason
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every
INDIVIDUAL observer has
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
I see a flaw in your argument.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal
present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read
it? It is impossible to define a clock on an
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one
where
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world
Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast
calculations is possible (and I can't
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his
4 levels of the multiverse, I need to throw out this question. Is it
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I tend not to consider that a brain is a digital computer.
I agree.
Then comp explains completely why a brain is definitely not a digital
computer.
A brain is a physical object. And if you grasp the step seven, you
should understand than
On 1/15/2014 11:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com
mailto:thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree with you that science, when you really start getting into
the
implications of things like QM (and
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:09, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words!
I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from
where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for
scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what
On 1/15/2014 11:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 6:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
particle
properties
Hi Jason,
Yes I do have an explanation for how GR effects are computed. Thanks for
asking. It's refreshing to just have someone ask a question about my
theories rather than jumping to attack them. Much appreciated...
The processor cycles for all computations are provided by P-time (clock
time
Dear Jason,
Let's try to be a bit more formal. Interleaving.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
I see a flaw in your argument.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014
On 1/16/2014 12:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the sense that a
computer can in theory do
On 1/16/2014 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The body does not produces consciousness, it only make it possible for consciousness to
forget the higher self, and deludes us (in some sense) in having a little ego
embedded in some history.
Sounds like wishful thinking. Why higher? Why not
Brent,
No, that's incorrect. No winning number needs to be drawn in the lottery.
In fact there are no winners fairly often. That's why the jackpot keeps
increasing
Lotteries are not won by choosing among player submitted numbers, they are
drawn at random from all possible numbers within
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something
impossible: that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that
correlates to a specific experience of an entity that is said to be
embedded in the block. My argument is that the entire way that time is
On 1/16/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.
So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in
a
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his 4 levels of the multiverse, I
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree with you that science, when you really start getting into
the
On 1/16/2014 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending
Dear Edgar,
I would agree with your idea here if you made one change: replace the
single abstract computing space for all of space-time and replace it with
an abstract computing space for each point of space-time. The *one*
computation becomes an *infinite number* of disjoint computations.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 6:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to
I must admit I thought the MWI had already retired the universe.
--
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 email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
Let's try to be a bit more formal. Interleaving.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Stephen Paul King
On 1/16/2014 1:40 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 19:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying.
*Space is
completely
On 17 January 2014 03:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Chris,
Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
'happening' drives it...
That isn't an answer to *anything* I've asked. Naming something doesn't
explain what it is.
I thought you'd have enough
On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in
Actually I can't be bothered asking Edgar the same questions again and
getting no answer again (or a non-answer like the one he just gave Chris,
while carefully ignoring me). If he wants to ignore my questions, I
shouldnt waste time asking. So I have deleted my post restating the
questions I asked
On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can do that (in fact
On 1/16/2014 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:46, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI about
how to
make an
On 1/16/2014 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, that's my point. Price make a logical point, though. But we have to abandon QM for
QM + a lot of extra-information to select one reality.
In that case why not come back to Ptolemeaus. The idea that it is the sun which moves in
the sky is
Stephen,
There is no all of spacetime nor each point of spacetime where the
computations are occuring. Remember, that's an abstract dimensionLESS
computational space prior to dimensional spacetime. It has no 'points'
itself, it computes all points of dimensional space and clock time. They
Stephen,
PS: I agree with the rest of what you are saying here but again you are
talking about clock time, dimensional spacetime, and not P-time which is
distinct and is prior to any metrics...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:23:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
On 1/16/2014 7:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL observer has
his OWN present moment time. You are trying to extend it to a cosmic universal time
which this argument doesn't address. That's the second argument you
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR
On 1/16/2014 8:30 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Leonard Susskind eventually solved the information paradox by insisting that we restrict
our description of the world to either the region of spacetime outside the black hole's
horizon or to the interior of the black hole. Either one is
On 1/16/2014 8:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Whether or not it has an I model it is making untrue claims which I consider suffi ent
to call lying.
You call it lying whenever someone is mistaken??
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
