Nick,
the rewinding of the aging process is tricky. Now I am diverting from my
lately absorbed worldview of an unlimited complexity of everything of which
we (humans) can acknowledge only a part and build from that our
'mini-solipsism' (after Colin H) - matching in *part* with many humans, by
On 01 Apr 2011, at 01:51, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Or something like that. Quantum logic (and also its arithmetical
form) has
many notion of implication. The one above is the closer to the
Sazaki Hook
which Hardegree
QTI is trivially false, because it is a paradoxical result, similar to
an alleged proof that 1 + 1 = 3. You don't need to check to proof to
see that it must be wrong.
The reason why QTI is a paradoxical is because we have a finite memory.
The class of all observers that can represent you is
Hi Nick,
On 31 Mar 2011, at 23:41, Nick Prince wrote:
Bruno wrote
With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to being a
baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more
continuous way, by little backtracking. We always survive in the most
normal world compatible
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
QTI is trivially false, because it is a paradoxical result, similar to an
alleged proof that 1 + 1 = 3. You don't need to check to proof to see that
it must be wrong.
You could apply that exact same argument to any hypothesis that sounds
On 31 Mar 2011, at 20:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is QTI false?
On 31 Mar 2011, at 15:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
***
Hi!
There seems to be a
On 01 Apr 2011, at 02:10, meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 03/31/11, Nick Princenickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:Bruno
wrote
With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to
being a
baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more
continuous way, by little
On 01 Apr 2011, at 00:58, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 02:52:44PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is here that if we apply Bayes' theorem (like in the Doomday
argument), we should be astonished not being already very old (from
our first person perspective). But Bayes cannot
On 01 Apr 2011, at 20:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
QTI is trivially false, because it is a paradoxical result, similar
to an
alleged proof that 1 + 1 = 3. You don't need to check to proof to
see that
it must be wrong.
You could apply
On Apr 1, 12:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote
That we don't see extremely old people is consistent with QTI, since
from the third person perspective rare events such
On Apr 1, 7:38 pm, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote
That we don't see extremely old people is consistent
11 matches
Mail list logo