On 23 Mar 2012, at 22:14, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are still avoiding the WM duplication.
There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different,
if 2 universes are identical then they have merged and there is now
On 23 Mar 2012, at 17:34, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences:
2^16 parallel universes needed to implement the
quantum superposition - used in Shor's quantum algorithm
to find the prime factors of
On Mar 24, 4:32 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Mar 2012, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world
without converting or sampling every truth about that world
available
to it into digital?
First, the fact that
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy,
From a 3rd POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure what
the thing we're looking at will do. From a 1 POV there is ALWAYS
indeterminacy, we don't know for sure
2012/3/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy,
From a 3rd POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy,
No in the f***ing though experiment you always want to change as you see
fit.
we
On 24 Mar 2012, at 18:44, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy,
From a 3rd POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for
sure what the thing we're looking at will do. From a 1 POV
Bruno, I did not branch out into the 1st line of my 1st quote of your
sentence.
Not that 2^16 is 'a' number, but parallel gives the idea of identicity
(at least in main qualia) which are (both) human talk. (Of course that's
what we can do).
I am glad that you agreed with my (generalized!) remark.
On 3/24/2012 12:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You keep asking who is this you
Yes.
it is the usual you, as the one you use in your everyday
The word you works fine in the usual everyday world,
No, please answer the last part of the message. The everyday world
Stephen, thanks for a new English word for me: caterwauling. I like it.
Sun'ichi Amari writes in a field I do not intend to penetrate and I have a
hard time to comprehend videos - even if they are not in Japanese-English.
I confess: I did not find too much connection in your text to my post.
Maybe
On 3/24/2012 4:47 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, thanks for a new English word for me: caterwauling. I like it.
Sun'ichi Amari writes in a field I do not intend to penetrate and I
have a hard time to comprehend videos - even if they are not in
Japanese-English.
I confess: I did not find too
Hi Stephen,
I am not sure if I completely understand you. My question was rather
what happens in Nature if we assume that its mathematical model includes
bifurcations and/or symmetry breaking.
Do you know a simple mathematical model with bifurcations and/or
symmetry breaking? It might be
Look up the literature on catastrophe theory. There were many examples
of just these phenomena cooked up (particularly by Zimmerman IIRC)
some good, many not so good. I'm sure you should be able to find
something appropriate - maybe the appearance of Benard cells for
instance.
Cheers
On Sat, Mar
12 matches
Mail list logo
