On 08 May 2013, at 13:12, Roger Clough wrote:
For the nonphysical (anything outside of time and space) see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-physical_entity
All this is just Aristotelian theology. They reify the physical,
On 08 May 2013, at 17:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the
On 08 May 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion.
Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged
religion,
?
but a religion that is not
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes
A speculation on the origin of spacetime amd matter out of cosmic mind
(the space vacuum)
No doubt this speculation is not original, but I am unaware of the proper
reference.
According to Leibniz's idealism, there are two basic interpenetrating states
of the universe, matter and mind.
On 09 May 2013, at 13:43, Roger Clough wrote:
A speculation on the origin of spacetime amd matter out of cosmic mind
(the space vacuum)
No doubt this speculation is not original, but I am unaware of the
proper reference.
According to Leibniz's idealism, there are two basic
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May
On Wed, May 8, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John
Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax.
Those aren't my words either, in fact I don't even know what a butterfly
hoax is.
Numerology was always one
How far down, or up, do the Monads go? Perhaps how for in or out. Do monads
stop at the Planck length, or the Beckenstein Bound?? Monads seem, somehow more
primal then an average particle. I could see neutrinos being real monads,
because they can alter from an electron neutrino to a muon, or
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged religion,
?
Which word didn't you understand?
but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion,
?
Which word didn't you understand?
spudboy...@aol.com
11:10 AM (44 minutes ago)
How far down, or up, do the Monads go? Perhaps how for in or out. Do monads
stop at the Planck length, or the Beckenstein Bound?? Monads seem, somehow
more primal then an average particle. I could see neutrinos being real
monads, because they can alter
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by Everett's MWI
also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.
Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.
Sure it is. When you take the trace of the density
What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical
problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels coexist
peacefully in our world.
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks. They have
On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno
On 5/9/2013 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave
collapse, by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing
the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation
did collapse or select irreversibly,
On 5/9/2013 9:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical
problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels coexist
peacefully in our world.
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms,
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match our
observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The model (free of
additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the model with it.
He showed that
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
our observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The
model (free of additional
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
our
observations, but
Bruno I stand corrected. You wrote:
*Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers written in
any base is random (incompressible). But there are no evidence at all of
random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on them seems like abandoning
research.*
*
*
I accept math-randomness
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the
Seeing conscious deliberations as maximally irreducible has some
relevance for the issue of free will. Consider for example the requirement
for autonomy: to be free, one must certainly be independent from
constraints outside one's deliberating consciousness. These include both
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:07:55 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John
Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts
whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal'
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But as a rule-of-thumb it is better to tentatively assume things we cannot
see don't exist.
I meant to ask: Why?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
If I may. We do so because we cannot account for such undetectable 'things'
except perhaps as some randomness in the system that we can observe.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
30 matches
Mail list logo
