Interview of physicist David Deutsch by science journalist John Horgan
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/3
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To
On 25 Sep 2011, at 08:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2011 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I said explicitly that exist means to be in the ontology of some
model, and so it is always relative to that model (and similarly
for nonexistent).
Bruno's shown how the physical world is part of the
On 26 Sep 2011, at 01:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, it would generate every possible information state,
and would therefore create me and all my possible futures, but these
'pictures' would have no coherence, would immediately dissolve back
into the
On 26 Sep 2011, at 01:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of
molecules.
I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the
incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an observer moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1QNR=1
Even if the experience is smeared out over time and has a complex
relationship to real world events it could
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's
computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of
my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field
containing every possible
On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com
mailto:pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's
computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of
my
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's
computations are not random, but I'm
On 26 Sep 2011, at 04:42, Pierz wrote:
OK, well first of all let me retract any ad hominem remarks that may
have offended you. Call it a rhetorical flourish! I apologise. There
are clearly some theories which require a profound amount of dedicated
learning to understand - such as QFT. I
On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com
mailto:pier...@gmail.com
On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/26/2011 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Suppose that you are currently in state S (which exist by the comp assumption).
But what does you refer to? The comp assumption seems ambiguous. Is it the assumption
that you are instantiated by a specific computation? Or is it the assumption that
On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you agree or don't you that the observable (or public, or third
person) behaviour of neurons can be entirely explained in terms of a
chain of
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Sep 2011, at 04:42, Pierz wrote:
- it's not well explained in the paper
yet contains the all the really sweeping and startling assertions.
When I presented UDA at the ASSC meeting of 1995 (I think) a famous
Craig will like part 6 of Dan Dennett's Harvard lectures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnbSj1OMA8wfeature=related
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
But if thoughts influence behaviour and thoughts are not observed,
then observation of a brain would show things happening contrary to
physical laws,
This image illustrates how bottom-up and top-down processing co-exist:
It's a little late for this post since I've already posted 2 or 3
things, but I figured I might as well introduce myself.
I'm majoring at philosophy at the University of Michigan, however I'm
studying abroad for a trimester at Oxford. I turn 21 on Oct. 4.
The main questions I've been researching
20 matches
Mail list logo
