I don't think Newtonian physics is intuitive. Most people's intuition and
experiences would not lead them to the idea that once set in motion an
object continues to move forever, nor that the the total direction of
matter is conserved. Even Descartes missed this.
Jason
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at
Most people find it more intuitive than QM. But OK, consider people who experience
Aristotelian physics.
Brent
On 5/24/2015 11:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't think Newtonian physics is intuitive. Most people's intuition and experiences
would not lead them to the idea that once set in
On 5/24/2015 5:34 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number
26th, the
last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the
materialist
stuff
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2015, at 02:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 17 May 2015 at 11:44, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au I can see that computationalism
might well have difficulties
accommodating a gradual evolutionary understanding of almost
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:10:37 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2015, at 12:36, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure why comp would predict that physical laws are invariant for
all observers
I can see that it would lead to a sort of super-anthropic-selection
effect, but surely all
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/24/2015 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:47:12 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 1:07:15 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote:
Pierz wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:10:37 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2015, at 12:36, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure why comp would predict that physical laws are
invariant for all observers
I can see that it would lead to a sort of
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 8:24:51 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is only a new recent fashion on this list to take seriously that
a recording can be conscious, because for a logician, that error is
the
On 25 May 2015, at 13:53, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:10:37 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2015, at 12:36, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure why comp would predict that physical laws are
invariant for all observers
I can see that it would lead to a sort of
On 25 May 2015, at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2015, at 02:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 17 May 2015 at 11:44, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au I can see that
computationalism might well have difficulties
accommodating a
On 25 May 2015, at 03:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/24/2015 5:05 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:02:42 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/23/2015 9:58 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 8:36:40 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure why comp would predict that physical laws
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I
think? (Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural
laws remain stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler
than anything asymmetric (although physics contains
On Monday, May 25, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/24/2015 4:27 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 May 2015 at 07:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/24/2015 11:28 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In a virtual environment, destroying the body destroys the
On 25 May 2015, at 02:06, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 23 May 2015, at 17:07, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 May 2015, at 15:53, Jason Resch wrote:
Brent:
would you include in your 'nomologics' all that stuff beyond our present
knowledge as well? Same with causal, but in reverse.
Probabilities depend on the borders we observe: change them and the results
change as well. The same as statistical, with added functionality.
Sorry for my
On 24 May 2015, at 23:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/24/2015 11:28 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/24/2015 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Again, with comp, all incarnations are zombie, because bodies do
not think. It is the
Suppose I wanted to create a new universe in my lab. What would I need to
get started?
The question may seem absurd. After all, the universe is enormous. It is
billions of years old and, as far as we know, it contains all that ever
existed and ever will exist.
Still it appears that all
Dear Samiya,
I do not want to put you on the spot, indeed.
Thank you for a decent and comprehensive reply.
What I referred to as #1, #17 and #18 were references to YOUR
post (as your 'numbered' verses from the Q'uran).
I do not believe such discussion may ever result in a reasonable
Run a computer simulation that contains a conscious observer and you
have created reality. In another sense, however, all universes already
exist and so you aren't creating anything, only forging a connection
to another universe that's out there.
Jason
On 5/25/15, spudboy100 via Everything List
On 5/25/2015 5:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/24/2015 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:47:12 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
On
WAtch out, Liz! you are getting close to ask about PRIME NUMBERS, what
may mean a totally different trap!
John M
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:33 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies obviously you did mean finite.
This is very interesting although probably too much for my brain at the
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno *did* acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of
physics are invariant across space and time, because they are supposed to
arise out of pure arithmetic
We know from pure mathematics (by way of Noether's theorem
Eric Steinhart believes like Dawkins does that it is evolution. That the
simplest starter universe, with something like Conway's Life, can produce
through a mathematical cascade effect, newer and eventually more complex
universes. I guess I am dumb enough to look at a prime programmer analyst,
What about such universes or subregions,domains, that sadly, lack a conscious
observer? What creates or sends the observer, perhaps a jobs agency? Observer
needed to alter empty spacetime region. Must be experienced in science,
history, and philosophy, and mathematics. Willing to take on a
I would say a novel may help make a blueprint, a direction, a precis, but not a
cosmos itself. Once upon a time..
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 25, 2015 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: What do you need to create
On 5/25/2015 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think? (Isn't there
something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain stable due to symmetry
principles, which are simpler than anything
On 5/25/2015 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 May 2015, at 03:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/24/2015 5:05 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:02:42 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/23/2015 9:58 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 8:36:40 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
Writing a novel is one way.
On 26 May 2015 at 09:13, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
What about such universes or subregions,domains, that sadly, lack a
conscious observer? What creates or sends the observer, perhaps a jobs
agency? Observer needed to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 May 2015, at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Part of my problem is that the UD does not execute any actual program
sequentially: after each step in a program it executes the next step
of the next program and so on, until it reaches the first step of some
program, at
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/25/2015 5:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 May 2015, at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Part of my problem is that the UD does not execute any actual
program sequentially: after each step in a program it executes the
next step of the next program and
On 5/25/2015 10:48 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/24/2015 4:27 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 May 2015 at 07:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/24/2015
On 5/25/2015 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bruno /did/ acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of physics
are
invariant across space and time, because they are supposed to arise out of
pure
On 5/25/2015 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2015, at 23:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/24/2015 11:28 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/24/2015 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Again,
I was speaking metaphorically.
There are those who think a new universe may form inside a black hole, of
course. (This isn't safe in the lab OR easy to communicate with, however.)
On 26 May 2015 at 10:52, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I would say a
On 5/25/2015 5:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 May 2015, at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Part of my problem is that the UD does not execute any actual program sequentially:
after each step in a program it executes the next step of the next program and so on,
until it
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 6:49:51 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/25/2015 5:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/24/2015 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:47:12 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at
On 26 May 2015 at 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think?
(Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain
stable due to symmetry principles, which are
On 25 May 2015 at 05:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/24/2015 2:12 AM, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think?
(Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain
stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler
On 26 May 2015 at 10:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/25/2015 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno *did* acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of
physics are invariant across space and time, because they are
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno *did* acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of
physics are invariant across space and time, because they are supposed to
arise out of pure arithmetic
On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last,
number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend
toward the materialist
LizR wrote:
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Of that I have no opinion because nobody knows what comp means,
least of all Bruno.
Comp is the theory that consciousness is the product of Turing-emulable
processes, i.e. that
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Of that I have no opinion because nobody knows what comp means, least of
all Bruno.
Comp is the theory that consciousness is the product of Turing-emulable
processes, i.e. that it's a computation. The idea that we may one day
43 matches
Mail list logo
