on 02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian Tennesontenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
We're talking about a mathematical theory about E.
What relevance does this comment have?
I would say that a model and reality are different things. Do you mean
that they
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian Tennesontenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
We're talking about a mathematical theory about E.
What relevance does this comment have?
I would
Have you read the whole thread?
silky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about a mathematical theory about E.
What relevance does this comment have?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality.
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on
02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian
Tennesontenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
We're talking about a mathematical theory
about E.
What relevance does
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality.
Okay, I won't reply further, this has become irrelevant noise.
--
silky
http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ (Noon Silk) | http://www.mirios.com.au:8081
Every morning when I wake
That's probably for the best.
I think if you read the thread you'd understand what my point of view
is, and answer your own questions towards me.
You might want to look into the works of Max Tegmark for a place to
start.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9704009
silky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011
I am new to this kind of thoughts, so my questions could be naive.
Still, I would appreciate if you could help me to understand such a
statement.
In my understanding, people make models basically to become more
competitive, in other words, to earn more money. From this viewpoint,
the
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I am new
to this kind of thoughts, so my questions could be naive. Still, I
would appreciate if you could help me to understand such a statement.
In my understanding, people make models basically to become more
competitive, in other words, to earn more money. From
on 02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Some time ago, I have read
David Chalmers, The Matrix as Metaphysics
http://consc.net/papers/matrix.pdf
Let me make one citation
Importantly, nothing about this Metaphysical Hypothesis is
skeptical. The
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on
02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Some time ago, I have read
David Chalmers, The Matrix as Metaphysics
http://consc.net/papers/matrix.pdf
Let me make one
on 02.01.2011 12:54 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Thank you for your answers. We could say that the Universe is made
of superstrings or we could say that the Universe is made of
On 02 Jan 2011, at 11:31, silky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality.
Okay, I won't reply further, this has become irrelevant noise.
I suspect the traditional confusion between model in the sense of
On 02 Jan 2011, at 13:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 12:54 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Thank you for your answers. We could say that the Universe is made
of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Jan 2011, at 11:31, silky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Brian
Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality.
Okay, I won't reply further, this has become irrelevant noise.
I
Also, the _expression_ "superstring are made of numbers" is unclear. If
computationalism is correct the _expression_ "made of" has no sense.
Things are not made of something, they are dreamed by (infinities) of
computation. The physical worlds becomes the border of the "matrix",
that is a
On 2 January 2011 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Chalmers told me that after a WM duplication the first person is in both
cities, which is correct *from a third person point of view on the first
persons, but not from the first person points of view themselves, and that
is the
On 03/01/2011, at 11:39 AM, David Nyman wrote:
The whole issue of where will I find myself after duplication is in
any case very curious. Deciding who I am and where I am can only
be post-hoc on the basis of present experience in the context of
memory.
It's even worse (better?) than
17 matches
Mail list logo
