On 29 January 2014 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Ah? I read his book on GR. It is a bit old but still pleasant. Not sure
that our minds crawl up our worldlines is wrong for block universe. Maybe
you can elaborate a little bit.
It creates the wrong image for people who don't
http://io9.com/physicists-say-energy-can-be-teleported-without-a-limi-1511624230?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebookutm_source=io9_facebookutm_medium=socialflow
Interesting how this pop article broaches the notion of a 'substitution level',
as well as the amount of data required to beam
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter.
This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, I'm
afraid...
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d
Kim
Kim
On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious
On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place
where precisely we should not attribute any
On 29 Jan 2014, at 22:28, Russell Standish wrote:
As someone pointed out, it requires a non-standard definition of
convergence, as these series are non-convergent according to the usual
Cauchy definition.
IIRC, it may be Abel summation? I remember Abel summation being
mentioned during my
On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.
And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or
All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar
*Eric Lerner*
*Big Bang Never Happened*
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
*Home Page and Summary*
In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence
that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by
Ghibbsa,
Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter
around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where
my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to
the unequal Hubble expansion.
It is precisely that gravity
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different
clock times.
OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment,
but, as you note, we still need to prove there
Edgar,
dark matter space warping as you call it is amenable to model
mathematically.
I think that is something we would all like to see.
Richard.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular
Edgar,
Please specify the mathematical relationship between p-time and coordinate
time.
Richard
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
fact that the twins DO share a
Ghibbsa,
PS: And note that we actually visually confirm the present moment of p-time
cosmological geometry because we actually DO SEE all 4-dimensions of our
universe all the time. We actually see the 3 dimensions of space as 3
orthogonal dimensions in the present moment of p-time, and then we
Richard,
Yes it is and I'd like to see it also but I don't have access to the
astronomical data to do it myself. I'd love to have someone with the
necessary background take a shot at it, but unless they somehow hear about
the theory I don't see how would happen...
Edgar
On Thursday,
On 30 January 2014 05:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that
Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will
still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical
processes. No doubt it
Richard,
I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions.
There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though
we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the
universe.
P-time is prior to measure because it is the presence of the
David,
Bruno's 'comp' has 2 intractable fundamental problems that I see.
1. There is absolutely no way for a static arithmetical Plantonia to
generate any happening whatsoever. Bruno's theory that all happening is a
1p perspective of human observers implies nothing happened in the entire
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:
wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The problem that
Mentioning comp poetry,
if we are just conscious mathematical creatures and mathematics has existed
long before us,
perhaps other conscious math creatures have also existed long before us as
Bruno describes.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:03 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 30
On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:07, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach
them this stuff. I remember someone once showed me the definition of
continuity in year 11 (with all the upside
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:26:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 13:30, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
What's wrong with the way a cadaver functions?
Many changes occur after death, the end result of which is that in a
cadaver, the
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:46:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.
On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:13, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R
On 30 January 2014 02:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be
linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To
put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact
that I am
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:48:55 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 January 2014 02:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be
linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To
David,
Boy, O Boy!
You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of
not providing!
Sorry for trying to help!
:-)
Edgar
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 02:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is
that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness -
including, crucially, the articulation of our
On 30 Jan 2014, at 03:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 30 January 2014 10:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Found this by coincidence. Bruno is getting famous :)
https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-11-12/combinator_chemistry.md
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Good luck to Shu. I occasionally chat over dinner with a local
professional physicist who disbelieves in the Big Bang. His alternative
also stumbles over the CMB, though. I suspect that a good heuristic for
inventing alternative theories is to not bother much to plumb their depths
unless
On 30 Jan 2014, at 06:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is
that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness -
On 30 Jan 2014, at 06:19, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus.
I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor
worship for one day.
and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth
without using a truth
On 30 Jan 2014, at 09:44, Kim Jones wrote:
http://io9.com/physicists-say-energy-can-be-teleported-without-a-limi-1511624230?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebookutm_source=io9_facebookutm_medium=socialflow
Interesting how this pop article broaches the notion of a
'substitution level', as
On 1/30/2014 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With comp it might be like with death, or approximation. The 1p experience are hard to
describe, and usually hard to memorize except for vague feeling that some time has
passed (when you come back).
In my experience both concussions and anesthesia
On 1/30/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In the comp solution, your consciousness has indeed nothing to do with the physical
computation, nor even the arithmetical computation.
But empirically it has a lot to do with it, hence concussions and anesthesia.
Brent
--
You received this message
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of
drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.
I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
complete 3p theory of
On 31 January 2014 04:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:07, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach
them this stuff. I remember someone once
On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Richard,
I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions.
:-)
There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see
though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the
On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of
matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along,
I'm afraid...
I think to be fair he wants to
As I wrote as an answer on my final astrophysics exam, Some 13
billion years ago, the universe was very much hotter and denser than
it is now. This is a problem for any theory that assumes the past was
always like the present, such as the Steady State cosmology.
There is also the question of
On 30 January 2014 16:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin of
reductionism :)
You do the mistake of those who deny compatibilistic free-will.
Of course we are at the crux of the mind-body problem.
Bruno, my dear
Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be
converted back and forth between each other.
I thought SR already did that? (Combined them, I mean). So they are already
not independent entities...? (Brent? :)
Also, I thought GR explained why energy isn't conserved on the
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar
*Eric Lerner*
*Big Bang Never Happened*
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
*Home Page and Summary*
...
Is the Big Bang a Bust?
The Big Bang Never Happened:
Time to look for polarisation in the CMBR and check for gravity waves... or
are we already onto that? :)
On 31 January 2014 10:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe
Brent,
So what you are saying is that because everything travels through spacetime
at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's path through
SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path through time
must be correspondingly shorter?
At least that's my
Liz,
Good question. Give me the formula to get the radius of a 4-dimensional
hypersphere from the curvature and I'll tell you. I asked for this already
and Brent gave me a formula that seems to make some extraneous assumptions.
The problem is that Omega doesn't simply seem to be the curvature
Edgar, if Omega=1 the universe wouldn't have the geometry of a hypersphere,
3D space would be flat--it would be more like a hyperplane. Only if
Omega is greater than 1 would it have the positive curvature of a
hypersphere (and if Omega is less than 1 space would have a hyperbolic
geometry with
Omega=1 (to within 0.4%) which means the universe is very close to flat (or
even hyperflat). This is what would be predicted by inflation (which is
just as well, because I believe inflation was invented specifically to
solve the flatness problem !)
If one treats the universe as having uniformly
On 31 January 2014 02:29, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg
On 31 January 2014 02:51, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Had we not already discovered the impossibility of resurrecting a dead
person with raw electricity, would your position offer any insight into
why
that strategy would fail 100% of the time?
Actually, we can sometimes
On 31 January 2014 04:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
Is it not that very idea which leads to the notion of zombie?
If consciousness is an epiphenomenon, eliminating it would change nothing in
the 3p.
There
Jesse,
Your first paragraph is correct. My theory, or at least this part of the
theory, makes the prediction that the universe is a 4-dimensional
hypersphere with p-time its radial dimension, i.e. that Omega is very
slightly 1. See my previous post of today in response to Ghibssa for
Liz,
In my theory one possible explanation of inflation could be an initial vast
difference in the rates of p-time and clock time. I'm not saying that is
the only explanation but it is a consistent one in my theory.
Thus it is meaningful to derive the radius of my proposed 4-dimensional
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:08:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 January 2014 16:33, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin
of reductionism :)
You do the mistake of those who deny compatibilistic
You may consider that repeated assertions of there is absolutely no way
constitute a carefully reasoned argument, but I'm afraid I do not.
David
On 30 Jan 2014 16:18, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
David,
Boy, O Boy!
You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused
David,
OK, if there IS a way that Bruno's comp produces the fine tuning AND actual
happening then explain what it is. You can't claim there is a way without
explaining what it is.
If you can't then I repeat my assertion that there is absolutely no way it
does, and that assertion is
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we think of
sense and motive as input and output.
This is only a step away from Comp, so it should not be construed to mean
that I am defining sense and motive as merely input and output. My purpose
here is just to demonstrate that
Concerning comp, the most constructive suggestion I can give you is that
you read Bruno's papers and work through his detailed arguments. You will
find him very patient in answering any questions. I don't see myself as a
defender of his ideas, but I have found (over many years, I should say)
that
Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from
something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing
something changing. Change is by definition things being different at
different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you
will
It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a computer
programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of the
programme). Obviously this isn't much use in practice, of course! But from
a philosophical perspective it's possible, so it isn't ontologically
essential
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a
computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of
the programme).
Added how though? By inputting code, yes?
Obviously this isn't
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from
something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing
something changing. Change is by definition things being different at
different
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Your first paragraph is correct. My theory, or at least this part of the
theory, makes the prediction that the universe is a 4-dimensional
hypersphere with p-time its radial dimension, i.e. that Omega is very
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a
computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of
the programme).
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from
something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing
something
66 matches
Mail list logo
