Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread John Mikes
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

Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2011-04-01 Thread smitra
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

Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: QTI is trivially false

2011-04-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
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

Re: Causality = 1p Continuity?

2011-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: QTI is trivially false

2011-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread Nick Prince
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

Re: Is QTI false?

2011-04-01 Thread stephenk
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