A consensus?!? Here???
Excuse me while I ROFLMAO, at least metaphorically.
*I'm *gonna read the damn thing, ha ha, to quote a very old review by John
Clute of a James Blish novel.
Well, at least, I'm going to give it a go. I like Mad Max's mojo for some
reason. They laughed at Bozo the clown,
Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense than
some posts around here!)
On 1 February 2014 08:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jOYKKp02FSU/Uuv8Dx3eOmI/AdU/bjA76WPypzU/s1600/robotwiz3.jpg
--
You received
On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense than
some posts around here!)
Hehe, thanks! I got accepted to do a poster presentation at the Tucson
consciousness conference again this year so I'm playing
On 1 February 2014 01:33, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It isn't *essential.
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no
program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output?
The UD.
Isn't everything output from the UD?
No, as I understand it, only
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:09:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 01:33, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January
Liz, that was enjoyable. In the back of it lurks the incompatibility of
'GOD with logics.
John
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Would math make God obsolete?
If so, that remainds me of something...
I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, for proof denies
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no
program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output?
The
On 1 February 2014 01:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Why do some people have such a
On 1 February 2014 02:08, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Why is this a problem? How can you know for sure that there is a flow
of time? Block universe hypothesis can explain how time would appear
to flow for each observer. This doesn't prove that block universe
hypothesis are
On 1 February 2014 02:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Again, the best way I can say it is that your mouth has to move plenty to
tell me it isn't moving!
Patronising, boring, insulting and totally failing to understand
elementary physics.
--
You received this message because you
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 01:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January
On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B
On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own
instantiation through input. It begins assuming that code is running. It
begins with the assumption that coding methods exist. I am saying that
those methods
On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is
On 1 February 2014 06:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote:
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
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:03:14 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own
instantiation through input. It begins assuming that code is running. It
begins
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :)
Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but not
quite. Both of these Brains the Size of a Planet are married though. We must
try to find a
On 1 February 2014 17:37, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :)
Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but
not quite. Both of these
On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can operate in a
block universe. All the phenomena we experience can occur in a block
universe, otherwise
On 31 January 2014 23:53, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Death used to be defined as the cessation of heartbeat and breathing,
Only by doctors.
By everyone, because it was obvious that the person was unconscious
and that, unlike sleep, they would not regain consciousness failing
On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is
computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely
overlooked in the ontology of computationalism. Given that, isn't it more
likely
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced
indefinitely. At present, we can repair or replace some parts in the
human body, but not enough to prolong life
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like change
can't happen in a block universe (which are obviously nonsense, or
Einstein et
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of reality. The
problem is that you are denying the flow of time.
For equations to compute (not just describe) reality, there must be active
processor cycles. There is
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
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
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
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
Brent,
PS on quoted post:
If, as you say, A's proper time (comoving clock) is running much slower all
during (most of) the trip to the center of the galaxy, then doesn't that
mean A would observe all the intergalactic stuff passing by him at MUCH
greater than the speed of light? How would
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:14:18 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 31 January 2014 02:51, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Had we not already discovered the impossibility of resurrecting a
dead
person with raw electricity, would your position offer any insight
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of reality. The
problem is that you are denying the flow of time.
Why is this a
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE
All,
It seems to me there are some somewhat questionable assumptions here based
on a very restricted data set.
First, the presumed acceleration of the Hubble expansion is based on the
varying redshifts of standard candles such as type 1a supernovas with
distance and time.
The basic problem
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not
Telmo,
Block time and Bruno's comp can only tell us how a set fixed static
sequence of events could be perceived by some observer as a fixed static
sequence of events. It simply CANNOT tell us how time moves ALONG that
sequence.
The fact that time flows, that things change, is a fundamental
PS:
A couple more thoughts on redshift and Hubble acceleration:
1. Since deep past light cones are curved inward it seems to me that
standard candle objects in the deep past would appear slightly smaller than
they should be if the universe had not expanded because their light rays
pinch
On 31 January 2014 13:28, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Imagine we are experiencing all the possible
moments, eternally, right now. Would things appear any difference
from the perspective of any of these moments?
Interesting question. Depends what you mean by we, I guess, and
On 30 Jan 2014, at 16:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
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
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar
On 30 Jan 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/30/2014 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Depends on what you mean by epiphenomenon. Is
On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The we of individual human beings relies on physical consistency because
that is a common sensory experience of the animalorganismsubstance
context. The substance context however relies on the we of the Absolute
context. The
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:14, John Clark wrote:
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
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote:
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
Bruno,
I HAVE explained my computational space and how it relates to p-time. Here
it is again copied from my post of Jan. 25 since you missed it.
Bruno,
Once again a summary of my computational universe:
The fundamental level of reality consists of pure abstract computationally
evolving
On 30 Jan 2014, at 22:08, David Nyman wrote:
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
Has there been any consensus as to the value or worth in buying this
book? If not so there is a numerical GR book next in the queue.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both
On 31 Jan 2014, at 01:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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,
On 31 January 2014 18:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
OK. But you could also start by saying something like the POPJ assumes by
default a primitively-physical basis).
Especially that it is certainly arguable that comp does not solve it to
our *entire* satisfaction yet.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jOYKKp02FSU/Uuv8Dx3eOmI/AdU/bjA76WPypzU/s1600/robotwiz3.jpg
--
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
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
experience of the subjective.
Nice for you.
Indeed.
But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an
other person,
I can't even prove
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
At all past times, the universe at all distances was expanding at the
same rate that we can observe it expanding only at a SINGLE distance.
But it hasn't always been expanding at the same rate. The universe is 13.8
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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
53 matches
Mail list logo
