- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 05:00 AM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
Stephen Paul King writes:
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
base
the
Dear Stathis,
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
snip
It is true that nature is quantum mechanical rather than
Dear Lee,
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: Functionalism and People as Programs
Stephen writes
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
Dear R.,
You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this,
what remains? Your suggestion seems to imply that precognition,
At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear R.,
You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this,
what remains? Your
At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear R.,
You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be
Saibal Mitra writes:
This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number
of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on
the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined.
Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time
rmiller wrote:
At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear R.,
You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
compare the copied produce to each
Hal,
Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark
McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is
caused by the expansion of atoms.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June
Some time back Lee Corbin posed the question of which was more
fundamental: observer-moments or universes? I would say, with more
thought, that observer-moments are more fundamental in terms of explaining
the subjective appearance of what we see, and what we can expect.
An observer-moment is
At 01:46 PM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
(snip)
What do you mean by the qualia approach? Do you mean a sort of
dualistic view of the relationship between mind and matter? From the
discussion at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/rhett.html it seems that
Sarfatti suggests some combination of Bohm's
At 01:28 PM 6/3/2005, Norman Samish wrote:
Hal,
Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark
McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is
caused by the expansion of atoms.
Norman
That's the excuse I use.
RM
- Original Message -
From: Hal
rmiller wrote:
At 01:46 PM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
(snip)
What do you mean by the qualia approach? Do you mean a sort of
dualistic view of the relationship between mind and matter? From the
discussion at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/rhett.html it seems that
Sarfatti suggests some
At 04:40 PM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
At 03:25 PM 6/3/2005, you wrote:
(snip)
I spoke with Schmidt in '96. He told me that it is very unlikely that
causation can be reversed, but rather that the retropk results suggest
many worlds.
But that is presumably just his personal intuition, not
Russell Standish recently mentioned his paper Why Occam's Razor which
can be found at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/ . Among
other things he aims to derive quantum mechanics from a Schmidhuber type
ensemble. I have tried to read this paper but never really understood it.
Here I
Saibal Mitra writes:
Stephen Paul King writes:
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
base
the idea that copies could exist upon? What if I, or any one
else's
1st
person aspect, can not be copied? If the operation of copying is
impossible,
what is the
-Original Message-
From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:59 PM
To: Stephen Paul King; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Equivalence
At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear R.,
You make a very good
R. Miller writes (quoting Lee Corbin):
If someone can teleport me back and forth from work to home, I'll
be happy to go along even if 1 atom in every thousand cells of mine
doesn't get copied.
Exposure to a nuclear detonation at 4000 yds typically kills about 1 in a
million cells. When that
You are constantly getting bigger. Photons emitted from you, and hence
entangled with your atomic states, form an shell expanding at the speed of
light. Eventually beings on other planets will be able to see you via these
photons.
Brent Meeker
-Original Message-
From: Norman Samish
At 10:58 PM 6/3/2005, you wrote:
R. Miller writes (quoting Lee Corbin):
If someone can teleport me back and forth from work to home, I'll
be happy to go along even if 1 atom in every thousand cells of mine
doesn't get copied.
Exposure to a nuclear detonation at 4000 yds typically kills
20 matches
Mail list logo
