On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:18, chris peck wrote:
So has Tegmark convinced me that in his thought experiment I would
assign 50/50 probability of seeing one or the other room each
iteration? Not really.
The question is: can you refute this. And for the UDA, you don't need
the 50%. You need
I would like to get a non-kindle version (!) - is that available?
On 4 March 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno
Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle
store.
On 3/3/2014 11:55 PM, chris peck wrote:
* I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said,*
Im reading the quote Jason kindly provided and responding to exactly what
Tegmark said.
*but using FPI as in Everett QM and writing down which of two equally likely events
you
Please let me know when the hard copy is available, as I would like a
physical version (ironic, I suspect, given the subject).
On 4 March 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno
Marchal's The
On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:49, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said If you repeated the cloning
experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room
number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence
of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros
On 03 Mar 2014, at 21:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:16:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim.
Best,
Bruno
On 04 Mar 2014, at 07:43, Russell Standish wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno
Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle
store. See
On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote:
On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the
impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4
beats to the bar, not 3?
Maybe I missed the point. I am not
On 4 March 2014 18:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said,
It's quoted in the first post on this thread.
but using FPI as in Everett QM and writing down which of two equally
likely events you actually experience is an
Jesse,
I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame.
The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION
OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers.
The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that
it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases
Bruno,
It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to
claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that
demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality.
Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH
WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it
On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation
of everything must be arithmetic as you say.
If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any
logical specification or axiomatization of any
On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:18, LizR wrote:
OK, so ignoring Brent who I'm sure is way ahead of me...
The problem is to show that
(W, R) respects []A - A if and only if R is reflexive,
Where reflexive means for all alpha, { alpha R alpha } (and nothing
more is implied!)
OK.
(better not to use
Thanks, Professor Marchal, I shall be purchasing your newly, translated, book
on Amazon, and a hat tip to professor Standish for the alert on this.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 4,
Thanks. I will look for the paperback version towards the end of this month.
Chris
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:16 AM
To: f...@googlegroups.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
Great news! I've got mine already on my trusty ebook reader. Let's displace
Paul McCartney
http://www.amazon.com/Amoebas-Secret-Paul-Mccartney/dp/B001OD6HRW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1393954155sr=8-1keywords=the+secret+of+the+amoeba
:)
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Chris de Morsella
On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:00, LizR wrote:
Hm. I don't know if the first one was OK but anyway let's look at
the second one.
A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said transitive if R is transitive.
That is
alpha R beta, and beta R gamma entails alpha R gamma, for all alpha
beta and gamma in W.
Edgar,
On 04 Mar 2014, at 15:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but
to claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism
that demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality.
Can you link me to any slow motion
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:27:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Mar 2014, at 21:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:16:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:42 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if the sad choice is saving the environment or human beings?
At least to some degree that is indeed the choice. There are over 7 billion
people on the planet, never before in the history of the Earth has a large
animal (over 50
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Edgar,
In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori
assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories
by making clear the assumptions.
The a priori assumption is that
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out
that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and
C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same
Jesse,
You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age
at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are
simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age
simultaneously).
2. If B and C's
But there's no rule that there have to be 7 billion people (and going to 9). Where ever
the Enlightenment and technology have displaced religion and poverty the birthrate has
dropped to below replacement.
Brent
On 3/4/2014 10:23 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:42 PM,
Bruno,
I only insult people who insult me first, which you and Liz did earlier
today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. If you insult someone
you should expect to receive the same.
If you don't I certainly won't. OK?
Edgar
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno
On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age
at this
point in
according to a study today out in New Scientist, a researcher has estimated
that OTEC power,even with 3% efficiency, can produce 4000 times our current
consumption. It may even be affordable. We may have a good way out.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To:
Jesse,
BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way
for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by
any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation.
If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way
for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by
any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age
Brent,
First thanks for your comment.
I think Jesse and I are both aware of that, but we are considering the age
relationship JUST BETWEEN A and B and so must consider only how they see it
in their OWN frames, not the view of a 3rd observer of that relationship.
Though Jesse would probably
Jesse,
Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in
a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame
is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it
expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree, is
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in
a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame
is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation
On 5 March 2014 06:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Great news! I've got mine already on my trusty ebook reader. Let's
displace Paul McCartney
--
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.
To post to this group, send email to
--
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.
To post to this group, send email to
On 5 March 2014 04:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Good.
To prove that P - Q, you can prove that P ~Q leads to a contradiction,
or you can prove that ~Q leads to ~P.
But it helps a lot if you start from what you want to prove, up to the
conclusion, so that not only you prove
On 5 March 2014 09:56, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
according to a study today out in New Scientist, a researcher has
estimated that OTEC power,even with 3% efficiency, can produce 4000 times
our current consumption. It may even be affordable. We may have a good way
out.
What's OTEC? Oops
On 5 March 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
I only insult people who insult me first, which you and Liz did earlier
today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. If you insult someone
you should expect to receive the same.
It wasn't an insult, merely an
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the
ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about
p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are:
ASSUMPTION 1. If
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 5 March 2014 09:56, spudboy...@aol.com
On 04 Mar 2014, at 19:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:27:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Mar 2014, at 21:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages?
Because we duplicate too slowly, unlike amoeba, which have not
Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw
Brent
--
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.
To
On 04 Mar 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I only insult people who insult me first,
No. You have insulted many people a long time before they react to the
insult. You arrive in a list, and you don't seem to have follow any
previous thread. people suggested you to read the UDA, which
43 matches
Mail list logo
