Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 31 Dec 2017, at 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/31/2017 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Dec 2017, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: So you think Bruno's theory fails because spacetime is discrete? However, gamma ray propagation from distant supernova show no dispersion, which

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 01 Jan 2018, at 00:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/31/2017 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hint: "1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12" can make sense. Only by redefining summation. Yes, of course, but not in an arbitrary way: "making sense" means we have a "reality", or "model", or

A paranormal prediction for the next year

One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet

Re: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

On 01 Jan 2018, at 13:39, David Nyman wrote: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full This link ​could serve as quite​ an illuminating adjunct to the dreamless sleep thread. The authors begin by asserting that 'consciousness' - by which they do ​indeed ​appear to

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 31 Dec 2017, at 19:50, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Il 31 dicembre 2017 alle 17.51 Bruno Marchal ha scritto: On 28 Dec 2017, at 08:50, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > Il 27 dicembre 2017 alle 23.24 Brent Meeker ha scritto: So

Re: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

On 1 January 2018 at 15:02, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Jan 2018, at 13:39, David Nyman wrote: > > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full > > This link > ​could serve as quite​ > an illuminating adjunct to the dreamless sleep thread. The authors

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not- > switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists > > > ​> ​ > Wonderful! > ​I found nothing wonderful in it, ​ ​I thought it was a rather silly article. Why

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > ​> ​ > What the hell does this have to do with the Fermi paradox? > ​That is a excellent question! I don't need the Everything List to read about flying saucers, I can pick up a tabloid newspaper at the

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:04:37 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>> Most of what you write is above my pay grade. I am asking whether the EM >> or other environmental interactions between two entangled

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/1/2018 4:16 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/1/2018 6:36 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 1:14:35 AM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > In fact,

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 1/1/2018 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12/31/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you find an empirical quantum tautology violated by Z1*, or X1*, or S4Grz1, There's no such thing as an empirical tautology...that's why I said it's a mugs game. A tautology is bthe name logicians

Re: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

On 1/1/2018 4:39 AM, David Nyman wrote: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full This link ​could serve as quite​ an illuminating adjunct to the dreamless sleep thread. The authors begin by

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:04:37 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Most of what you write is above my pay grade. I am asking whether the EM > or other environmental interactions between two entangled particles while > they are causally connected, for establishing a variable that

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> What the hell does this have to do with the Fermi paradox? >> > > ​That is a excellent question! I don't need the

Re: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

On 1 January 2018 at 19:34, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/1/2018 4:39 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full > > This link > ​could serve as quite​ > an illuminating adjunct to the dreamless sleep thread. The authors

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> What the hell does this have to do with the Fermi paradox? >> > > ​That is a excellent question! > Obvious to a

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > >> >> I know a good deal about physics and a good deal about people's tendency >> to prevaricate. I see no reason to set any of that aside. If I did

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/1/2018 6:36 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 1:14:35 AM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/1/2018 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Dec 2017, at 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/31/2017 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Dec 2017, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: So you think Bruno's theory fails because spacetime is discrete? However, gamma ray propagation from

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> I know a good deal about physics and a good deal about

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

Lying is not the only explanation for these witness statements. What these witnesses saw may well have explanations other than ET. One of my favourites, though obviously rather implausible, is that they are time travellers of some future type of human checking us out. More likely it is some form

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:27:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Two entangled electrons interact via EM processes as they separate while > time-like separated. Couldn't they communicate at this time, setting their > spins appropriately, oppositely? (I don't think so they can't

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:27:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Two entangled electrons interact via EM processes as they separate while >> time-like separated. Couldn't they communicate at this

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:48:54 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/1/2018 4:16 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/1/2018 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2018, at 00:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/31/2017 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hint: "1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12" can make sense. Only by redefining summation. Yes, of course, but not in an arbitrary way: "making sense" means

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:30:27 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800,

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the > incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the video > convinced me otherwise. AG What did you find so convincing? My scepticism is

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:27:00PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > Two entangled electrons interact via EM processes as they separate while > time-like separated. Couldn't they communicate at this time, setting their > spins appropriately, oppositely? (I don't think so they can't know in

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 1:14:35 AM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the > > incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The strong AI thesis is that such machine would be conscious > ​Where is the world did you get that idea? The term "strong AI thesis" was invented by working scientists and they have no use for the C word because

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 01 Jan 2018, at 00:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/31/2017 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Dec 2017, at 23:29, Lawrence Crowell wrote: Computationalism is not something that is falsified any more than the mathematics employed in a theory are falsifiable. Computationalism is just

Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full This link ​could serve as quite​ an illuminating adjunct to the dreamless sleep thread. The authors begin by asserting that 'consciousness' - by which they do ​indeed ​ appear to mean phenomenal awareness as distinct from any ​of

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/31/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you find an empirical quantum tautology violated by Z1*, or X1*, or S4Grz1, There's no such thing as an empirical tautology...that's why I said it's a mugs game. A tautology is bthe name logicians gave to any propositional calculus. A

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the > > incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 01 Jan 2018, at 00:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/31/2017 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Dec 2017, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: So you think Bruno's theory fails because spacetime is discrete? However, gamma ray propagation from distant supernova show no dispersion, which