On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?
Computaionalism or Bruno's comp?
We have already discussed this. Comp, as I use it,
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nanotransistor-breakthrough-to-offer-billion-times-faster-computer-20120220-1thqk.html
Kim Jones
--
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@g
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > It
On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion
On 2/20/2012 03:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> If I am a simulation, and a programmer watches 'me' and can intervene
> and change my program and the program of my universe at will, then to
> me they are a true God, and I would be well advised to pray to them.
>
I think you might be misunderstanding C
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> Comp says that any UM's
> experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?
>
Computaionalism or Bruno's comp?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everyt
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> > What you suggest in saying that no event can be known to be
> > supernatural is the same as saying that all video games would have to
> > have the same basic rules.
>
> No all MWI have the same basic rules. MWI is an interpretation of quantum
> mechani
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but
> > > > > > I would
> > > > > > lik
On 2/19/2012 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zwrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is th
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
> > > > > would
> > > > > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
> > > > > In
On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
> would
> like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many World
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
> > > > would
> > > > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
> > > > Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is
On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
ever
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
> > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
> > > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
> > > Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
> > > every particle interaction
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> > > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
> > > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
> > > Interpretati
On 19 Feb 2012, at 06:16, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> That solipsism. I don't see why you believe that people have to
believe in comp to avoid solipsism.
Everybody, when not arguing philosophy on the internet, believes
that physical action
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:21:01AM -0500, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> >
> > > If one well defines a thought experiment with the Maxwell's demon, then
> > it is quite clear that such thing does not exist. Why then to spend on it
> > so much time?
On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> > It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
> > like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
> > Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where e
On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
> like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
> Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
> every particle interaction is r
On 19.02.2012 17:21 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
If one well defines a thought experiment with the Maxwell's
demon, then
it is quite clear that such thing does not exist. Why then to spend
on it so much time?
Maxwell's demon is poss
On Feb 18, 1:35 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > It's not trying to explain how God did it though, it gets around that by
> > collapsing all whats and hows into a single overarching Who and Why.
>
> Exactly, religion takes everything we don't understand
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> > If one well defines a thought experiment with the Maxwell's demon, then
> it is quite clear that such thing does not exist. Why then to spend on it
> so much time?
Maxwell's demon is possible in classical physics and it was not clear
John,
On 18 Feb 2012, at 22:54, John Mikes wrote:
A bit from 'outside the box':
the 'religious' ideas emerged from the 'awe' how very ancient apes
looked at the world. It went through innumerable changes to reach a
tribe with writing skills and the Bible was established saving
positive at
On 19.02.2012 15:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
Both Cantor and Gödel used the word theology
...
Could you please cite these works?
By the way, recently I have listened to the course Theorien der Wahrheit
(Theories of truth) by Prof Hoenen. Among other works he has discussed
Logisc
Since every organism produces itself from a single dividing cell, it
can be said that there is a single history which unites that body back
to the cellular level. Atoms do not literally reproduce by themselves
so that a machine that is assembled has a no single history to unite
it.
This becomes mo
On 18 Feb 2012, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2012, at 17:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
but I don't see the point.
The point is to come back to the scientific attitude in the field
of theology.
Exce
On 18.02.2012 23:37 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:49:44PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 09.02.2012 07:49 meekerdb said the following:
There's an interesting paper by Bennett that I ran across, which
discusses the relation of Shannon entropy, thermodynamic en
27 matches
Mail list logo
