Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I think I'd like to respond
here:
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> > Hey all on the list,
> >
> > Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assump
On 10/11/2013 9:44 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Sometimes, Bruno, I get the feeling as though you are a chef at a restaurant with a
wonderful menu, but whenever anyone orders an item on it, all you can do is give them
exactly the same picture of the item they ordered from the menu, but never the
On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic
> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to
> be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s.
>
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:18:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2013, at 08:58, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic
> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to
> be. From this p
Hey Craig, thanks for the feedback. Please refer to below:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:10:39 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic
>> complex,
On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:32:49 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:37:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, Oct
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:37:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:58:30 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9 October 2013 05:25, Crai
On 10/11/2013 7:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of the UD,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >>Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
> >>state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, t
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit
output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog that th
On 10/11/2013 4:45 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
t
On 12 October 2013 12:06, Pierz wrote:
> Haha. The flattery may be undone by learning that your view of quantum
> probability is also endorsed by Olivia Newton-John's nephew! :)
>
OMG!!!
:D :D :D
It's electrifying!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>
> UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
> the cardinality of the reals, and a natu
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 9:07:57 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> > > The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets
> in
> > great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable
> >
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
> state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit
> output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog that the UD has
> started. Right?
>
Its not t
On 10/11/2013 4:05 PM, Pierz wrote:
It does seem that the measure problem is an open one for comp, as far as I can tell from
Bruno's responses, but he seems confident it's not insurmountable.
Bruno's so confident that he argues that there must be a measure (because he's assumed
comp is true an
On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
the cardinality of the reals, and a natural metric (d(x,y) = 2^{-n}, where n is
the number of leading bits in common bet
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:37:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:58:30 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 9 October 2013 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> >
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100
Haha. The flattery may be undone by learning that your view of quantum
probability is also endorsed by Olivia Newton-John's nephew! :)
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:26:23 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
>
> I know I shouldn't be flattered to hear that Max Born's great grandson
> endorses my view of qu
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:42:06 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
>
> And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of
> irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as
> those between 0.1 and 1.
>
>
> No,
On 12 October 2013 11:35, Russell Standish wrote:
> The UD doesn't output anything. If it did, then certainly, the output
> could not be an uncountable set due to the diagonalisation argument.
>
Yes, I wasn't speaking very precisely. Obviously there is no output,
because where would it go? I mea
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
> >the cardinality of the reals, and a natural metric (d(x,y) = 2^{-n}, where n
> >is
> >the number of leading bits in common between x and y).
>
> Hmm? So 1000 is t
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR wrote:
>
> > On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >> > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form
> >
On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR wrote:
> On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>> > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form
>> > a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an underlying
>>
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form
> > a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an underlying
> > continuum (spacetime) is assumed, but not in
On 10/11/2013 2:46 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are t
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> > The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets in
> great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable
> infinities (as Russell points out)), whereas it may be a problem for
Interesting. I was
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >>So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
> >>measurement. How are these universes distinct from one anothe
On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:58:30 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 9 October 2013 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579115310362925246.html
>> >
>>
>>
>> > A lot of wha
I know I shouldn't be flattered to hear that Max Born's great grandson
endorses my view of quantum probability, but.
:D :D :D
On 12 October 2013 00:11, Pierz wrote:
> That is pretty much exactly my understanding. It does puzzle me that this
> argument about the supposed probability pr
On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers
between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1.
No, the two are exactly the same uncountable infinity, because there is a 1-to-1 mappin
On 10/11/2013 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement.
How are
these universes distinct from one another?
They aren't 'distinct'. The hypothesis is that every universe
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
infinity as those between 0.1 and 1.
It is the same cardinal
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of
irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
infinity as those between 0.1 and 1.
It is the same cardinal (2^aleph_zero). But cardinality is not what
count whe
Opps. I replied before reading the entire discussion
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Pierz: Every branch of the multiverse contains an infinity of identical,
> fungible universes.
> Richard: How do you know this? Who said so?
> Besides the branches must contain a fini
Pierz: Every branch of the multiverse contains an infinity of identical,
fungible universes.
Richard: How do you know this? Who said so?
Besides the branches must contain a finite number of identical universes
for probabilities to be realized.
Dividing infinity by any number results in an infinit
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:09, Pierz wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
They aren't 'distinct'. The hypothesis is that every universe b
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of
irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as
those between 0.1 and 1. So extrapolating to universes, the very low
probability, white rabbit universes also occur an infinite number of times,
but
That is pretty much exactly my understanding. It does puzzle me that this
argument about the supposed probability problem with MWI is still live,
when that explanation seems perfectly coherent.
On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04:40 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
>
> If you subdivide a continuum, I assum
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>
> So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
> measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
>
They aren't 'distinct'. The hypothesis is that every universe branch
contains an *uncountable*
If you subdivide a continuum, I assume you can do so in a way that gives
the required probabilities. For example if the part of the multiverse that
is involved in performing a quantum measurement with a 50-50 chance of
either outcome is represented by the numbers 0 to 1, you can divide those
into 0
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
> measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
> Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement, or
> do infinitely many come into existence
On Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:58:30 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 9 October 2013 05:25, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
> >
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579115310362925246.html
>
>
>
> > A lot of what I am always talking about is in there...computers don't
> > und
On 11 Oct 2013, at 08:58, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a
psychic complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses
may appear to be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude
of "me"'s.
The impulses in question
On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic
> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to
> be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s.
>
On 10 Oct 2013, at 22:36, LizR wrote:
Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H
man. I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints,
although as usual I may be missing something.
No I agree. Clark does understand the 1-indeterminacy, as he betrayed
by
On 10 Oct 2013, at 20:35, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>The question is will "he" turn into the Moscow Man or the
Washington Man,
> Yes.
Thank you!
>> and that depends on one thing and one thing only, what
information "he" receives.
> N
48 matches
Mail list logo
