On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think you've got the argument wrong.
> >>
> >>
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think you've got the argument wrong.
>>
>> I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
>
> I suppo
On 5/1/2010 6:15 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
And do you believe this sequence will persist in
producing orderly and consistent experiences?
I do believe that. BUT...why do I believe it? Well, ultimately,
there is no reason I b
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>> And do you believe this sequence will persist in
>>> producing orderly and consistent experiences?
>>
>> I do believe that. BUT...why do I believe it? Well, ultimately,
>> there is no reason I believe it. I just do.
>
> Then why don't y
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
> > But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would
> necessarily
> > start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to encode
> more
> > than one or two bits a
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer
> wrote:
> >
> > I think you've got the argument wrong.
>
> I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
>
I suppose it depends what you mean by "the argument". It is possible you
c
Thanks, Russell, it was very educative. I learned about singularity probably
before you were born, and that was not a 'mathematical' one. By 1956 I
probably even forgot about it. The term - in its classical form - was almost
interchangeable with nirvana. Probably the first model of a black hole cou
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Sure we can, because part of the meaning of "random", the very thing that
> lost us the information, includes each square having the same measure for
> being one of the numbers. If, for example, we said let all the "1"s come
> first - in whi
On 5/1/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Fine. You solve all problems by postulating that your consciousness is
fundamental, it just IS,
I don't solve all problems. I only solve all metaphysical problems.
But isn't that what physica
Mathematically, a singularity is where something is divided by
zero. A matrix with zero determinant is singular - if you attempt to
solve the simultaneous linear equations described by the matrix, you
will end up dividing by zero - a singularity.
In General Relativity, a singularity is where the s
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Fine. You solve all problems by postulating that your consciousness is
> fundamental, it just IS,
I don't solve all problems. I only solve all metaphysical problems.
But isn't that what physicalists attempt to do by postulating a
physical u
On 5/1/2010 3:17 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Seems like a good answer to me. Suppose there were infinitely many rolls of
a die (which frequentist statisticians assume all the time). The fact that
the number of "1"s would be countably infinite a
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Seems like a good answer to me. Suppose there were infinitely many rolls of
> a die (which frequentist statisticians assume all the time). The fact that
> the number of "1"s would be countably infinite and the number of "not-1"s
> would be
On 5/1/2010 2:40 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
consciousness, but to th
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> This argument is not
> definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
> consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical
On 5/1/2010 12:31 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would necessarily
start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to encode more
than one or two bits at the Planck scale. If o
Hi, Quentin, .
Long time no exchange... and thanx.
That is a good suggestion, I just cannot figure out how can a Singularity be
Technological?
I may have too 'big' assumptions about the 'S'-concept, including it's *
closedness* so even no information can slip out (= we don't even know about
its con
On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for
consciousness it seems pretty good.
Ha! As l
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would necessarily
> start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to encode more
> than one or two bits at the Planck scale. If one universe can start that
> way then ar
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> This argument is not
> definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
> consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for
> consciousness it seems pretty good.
Ha! As long as you assume there is no problem of con
On 5/1/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
Carroll discusses this in his book "From Eternity to Here"
> From Eternity To
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
> Carroll discusses this in his book "From Eternity to Here"
>From Eternity To Here, Pg. 182 (my comments follow the quote):
"Cognitive
Yeah, I should untangle these acronyms more often. Apologies to John.
TS = Technological Singularity.
> Some recent discoveries makes me think that our digital substitution
> level, if it exists, may be far lower than standard neuro-philosophers
> may think.
>
> - The discovery of wave-like
23 matches
Mail list logo
