On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why do
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno
On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2014 20:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You have to show two things:
1) R is transitive - (W,R) respects []A - [][]A
and
2) (W,R) respects []A - [][]A- R is transitive
Let us look at 1). To show that R is transitive -
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com
On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:31, LizR wrote:
Let's take 3 worlds A B C making a minimal transitive multiverse.
ARB and BRC implies ARC. So if we assume ARB and BRC we also get ARC
Right.
(if we don't assume this we don't have a multiverse or at least not
one we can say anything about.
This,
This is certainly one subject on which I totally agree with you, Chris.
And if we do hit the wall, we'll be back in the Middle Ages - for good this
time, or at least until some extinction level event finishes us off -
something that would have been trivial to avoid if we'd grown up and become
a
On 06 Mar 2014, at 00:17, John Mikes wrote:
Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long
as you cannot identify it. Attribute of a 1st person? that would
leave out lots of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st
person.
On 06 Mar 2014, at 01:52, chris peck wrote:
Hi Jason/Gabriel
Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it
was a mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given
Jason's comments, to think that seemingly regular sequences were
quite common.
I do
On 06 Mar 2014, at 02:51, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
The question is: can you refute this.
To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not.
Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
Though perhaps you have an ideological agenda
Which one would that be.
I don't know anything about obligatory ram ventilators, but I do like
fluffy kittens.
On 6 March 2014 17:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Could be - I have heard the
Ghibbsa and Bruno,
Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't
really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error
discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted
assumptions and conclusions about its application to the
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you
what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're
looking at cases where the
On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
I was?
Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this
except in response to your own Troll obsession.)
Anyway let's
Jesse,
Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame
synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY
FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we
know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:17 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
This is certainly one subject on which I
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
I was?
Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have
Jesse,
You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will
be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of
any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think
they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will
Jesse,
I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME
VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.
What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation.
Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame
synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY
FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we
Chris, not to be disagreeable, but the tech either works or it does
not, is either clean or its not, is abundant or it isn't, is affordable
or it ain't. We need it all to work in a newtonian sense, or its
useless. Fuel efficiency has been promoted by greens, as an ideological
thing. It has
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show
you what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date
That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived,
better educated or richer than it is today so global warming seems to have
caused little harm
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism,
despite there never having been such a thing
Actually there has been, the black-market.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious
But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some
computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person is
nothing capable of being
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be,
but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity
like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If
On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim.
Best,
Bruno
Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics?
It is OK, to ask, but it is delicate.
But it is,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and
tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well?
No, conserving angular momentum isn't just a good idea, it's the law; and
yet car engines and tidal
On 3/6/2014 9:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and
gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same
On 7 March 2014 06:01, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
I was?
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
they
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella
On 7 March 2014 07:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism,
despite there never having been such a thing
Actually there has been, the black-market.
Ooh
From: spudboy...@aol.com spudboy...@aol.com
Chris, not to be disagreeable, but the tech either works or it does
not, is either clean or its not, is abundant or it isn't, is affordable
or it ain't. We need it all to work in a newtonian sense, or its
On 7 March 2014 09:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and
tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well?
No, conserving angular momentum isn't
On 7 March 2014 09:14, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
--
*From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:48 AM
*Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:26 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do we need to sleep?
Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded
out individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering
around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism,
despite there never having been such a thing
Actually there has been, the black-market.
Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to
Informatique théorique et philosophie de l'esprit
Information Theory of Spirits
(mistranslation intended)
My Aristotelian take:
From Leibniz Discourse,
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/leibniz%20-%20discourse%20on%20metaphysics.htm
XXXV: The excellence of spirits; that God
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa and Bruno,
Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't
really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error
discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just
On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question Goedel? in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the
Russell,
Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of
whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that single person
first approved it and then rejected it when he had some dispute with Bruno?
That sounds quite strange to me. Normally it would be a
Just realized in retrospect that it was a very confusing choice of
terminology to use reference frame to refer to the frame that's used to
label other frame's relative velocities--I was thinking of the idea that
other frame's velocities are labeled in reference to this one choice of
frame, but
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely
Only Russell can answer this. I would
Hi Bruno
Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are
mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction
of
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:05:42PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question Goedel? in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even
On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would
--
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
From: spudboy...@aol.com spudboy...@aol.com
Chris, at some point we must ask basic questions, such as, do the toilets
flush, and do the lights come on? We are not, I believe, speaking here about
Bruno's UDA, versus Tegmark's MUH, but how well our
Hi Bruno
ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You
must say at which step rigor is lacking.
I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to
Liz. Don't worry about it.
You make vague negative proposition containing precise
On 3/6/2014 6:12 PM, chris peck wrote:
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is the
probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes the idea that
there will be only one unique successor of H. The only question that is really fitting
in
Congratulations Bruno, and thank you Russell and Kim!
I am anxious to get my hands on the hard copy.
Jason
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Hi everyone,
Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno
Marchal's The Amoeba's
If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with
a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have
replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a
different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:52 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Hi Jason/Gabriel
Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a
mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments,
to think that seemingly regular sequences were
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every
case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com
wrote:
you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date
That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived, better educated
or
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:39 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious
But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
person is conscious, and a
60 matches
Mail list logo
