2009/2/9 Jack Mallah :
> You might die between 4 and 30, but the chance is fairly small, let's say 10%
> for the sake of argument. So, if we just consider these two ages, the
> effective probability of being 30 would be a little less than that of being 4
> - not enough less to draw any conclu
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on
> average each has 1/N of your original measure. I guess
> that's why you think the measure decreases. But the sum
> of the measures is N/N of the original.
>
> I still find this confusing. Your
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, russell standish wrote:
> He must have some model in mind which tells us how
> the "amplitude" of the branches relates to the "amplitude" of the
> original state.
The Schrodinger equation is linear and unitary. As long as it applies (in
other words, assuming the MWI, so no
So far the responses here have not been as hostile as I feared :)
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> are you open to the idea
> that there might be truths about subjectivity (such as
> truths about what philosophers call 'qualia') which
> cannot be reduced to purely physical statements? Ar
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:34:30PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100
> > From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> > To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
> >
>
> > All I have ever said was that effective p
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
>
> All I have ever said was that effective probability given by the
> squared norm of the projected eigenvector does not follow
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:33:52PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:47:02 +1100
> > From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> > To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
> >
> >
> > Jesse, you need to fix up your email cl
> From: laserma...@hotmail.com> To:
everything-l...@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques
Mallah]> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 20:33:52 -0500>> I don't understand, why is this
implied by what Jacques or I said? My comment was that the
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:47:02 +1100
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
>
>
> Jesse, you need to fix up your email client to follow the usual
> quoting conventions, wrap lines etc.
I'm using hotmail,
Jesse, you need to fix up your email client to follow the usual
quoting conventions, wrap lines etc. Below is how your text appears in mine:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:46:04AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> Russell Standish wrote:> > According to Wikipedia, Born's rule is that the
> probability
Günther, *please see inserted in "JM:" lines*
John
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> John,
>
> my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
> two books could give you the central idea:
>
> Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
>
Hello Jack,
> I could tell you what's wrong with his MGA, but I'm here to deal with the QS
> paper first.
I appreciate your prioritizing your paper, but I would be interested in
what you find wrong with the MGA.
By the way, as I mentioned in a previous mail to John, my departure from
materia
Dear Bruno,
>> Some of these books I have already read (Boolos),
> You mean read with pencil and paper?
Well no *grin* - it was the adopted textbook in one of the courses I
took, and I did the assigned exercises, but now flipping through the
book I realize I must go back to it again - more than
John,
my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
two books could give you the central idea:
Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations
(materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out).
The n
Brian,
Tononi's information integration view of consciousness might fit your bill.
Overview:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6315
Paper (open access):
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42
Cheers,
Günther
Brian Tenneson wrote:
> Dear Everything List,
>
> Tegmark mentioned in an arti
'Tis poetry!
Kim, Bruno, thanks for this wonderful dialog. Most beautiful stuff I've
read in a long time - and so spontaneous.
Cheers,
Günther
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> I have not the time to think deeply on zero, so I will answer your last
> post instead :)
>
>
> On 05 Feb 2009,
2009/2/8 Jack Mallah :
> Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on average each has 1/N of your
> original measure. I guess that's why you think the measure decreases. But
> the sum of the measures is N/N of the original.
>
> This is trivially obvious so I saw no reason to mention it e
Russell Standish wrote:> > According to Wikipedia, Born's rule is that the
probability of an> observed result \lambda_i is given by <\psi|P_i|\psi>, where
P_i is the> projection onto the eigenspace corresponding to \lambda_i of the>
observable. > > This formula is only correct if \psi is normal
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 10:05:14AM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish wrote:
> > So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
>
> Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
> this list. That's why I'm here now - to
19 matches
Mail list logo
