On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences
into account
The not a ?? For the third time please say how many first
person experiences exist on planet
On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would
please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)
I
On 19 Dec 2013, at 21:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
We don't assume QM.
If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable matter needs the
On 19 Dec 2013, at 21:36, John Mikes wrote:
Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play
'teleportation':
It is theoretical reasoning in the frame of an hypothesis making such
theorizing meaningful, unless you believe that comp is false. But then
you might have to argue
On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:26, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
1. Teleportation is survivable
Yes.
2.Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time
delay is imperceptible to the person teleported
Obviously.
3.
On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:46, Jason Resch wrote:
8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the
executions of all programs exist within the relations between large
numbers.
That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist,
and maybe that's the way things
On 20 Dec 2013, at 01:01, LizR wrote:
On 20 December 2013 11:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/19/2013 1:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
To me it seems like thinking something is true is much more of a
fuzzy category that asserting something is true
Maybe. But note that Bruno's MGA
On 20 Dec 2013, at 02:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it's all just math, what is the unexpected surprise that makes it
funny? Is math surprised that its math?
It is of course only surprising for those deluded (assuming comp) into
thinking that there is some primitive non mathematical
What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single multiverse
rather than than multiple multiverses.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013, at 02:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it's all just math, what is the unexpected
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953.pdf
Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
Andreas Albrechthttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Albrecht_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
, Daniel Phillipshttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Phillips_D/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 5 Dec 2012)
We argue using
Richard,
On 20 Dec 2013, at 12:40, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single
multiverse rather than than multiple multiverses.
Interesting problem.
Comp predicts only a single multi-dreams, which is the universal
computation made by the UD, or
Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit
like a black hole could be a door to another universe.
Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed
using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe.
On Fri, Dec 20,
On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of observable matter
needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly, given that the appearance of matter is
only the result of the FPI on all computations (an infinite object).
That
Dear Bruno,
Does there really need to be a single level of the UD? What is the UD is
intersecting with itself an infinite number of times? Is there a
relationship. maybe an isomorphism, between the UD and the set of Godel
numbers of the UD? After all, there does not exist a unique universal
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for
a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark
will eventually find himself in this computer
Yes, in fact it may have already
Dear Bruno,
Could it be that the physical world that is associated with an observer
(using your definition of an observer) is the truth of that observer? I
apologize for the weirdness of this question, but consider that nothing is
more true than the 1st person experience that an observer has.
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable matter needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly, given
that the appearance of
On 12/20/2013 10:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for
a long
enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark
On 12/20/2013 11:18 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable
Hi Brent,
I know the difference. I am asking why? What if there is a UD related
process underlying the symmetry?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 11:18 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state. It's not so clear though how that is related to consciousness and
identity.
I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that
Dunno. If the UDA can show that the world must be made of indistinguishable particles and
they must obey either Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics, but not Maxwell-Boltzman
that would be fairly impressive.
Brent
On 12/20/2013 11:41 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
I know the
On 12/20/2013 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state. It's
not so clear though how that is related to consciousness and
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How many first person experiences viewed from their first person points
of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?
The question is ambiguous.
I provided all the information needed to be
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at
the intended destination
JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100% chance
Jason Resch will be at the intended destination.
Hi John,
Questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state. It's not so clear though how that is related to
On 12/20/2013 1:10 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi John,
Questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many
different version of the same software, no? I worry that we are treating
the mind and consciousness as a thing, as if we could hold it in our
hands, when we try to make sense of it.
THis may be a mistake...
On Fri, Dec
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many different
version of the same software, no? I worry that we are treating the mind and
consciousness as a thing, as if we could hold it in our hands, when we try to make
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many
different version of the same software, no? I worry that we are
Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum?
Brent
On 12/20/2013 2:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King
Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise!
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum?
Brent
On 12/20/2013 2:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20,
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
I think it was you that wrote (to me):
I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would
be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by
someone somewhere.
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. I learned those figments in college
and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility
(agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical
results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory
Liz: we had a stereotypic reply in Hungary applicable to what you wrote
*And THEN you woke up.*
John
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 December 2013 09:25, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
How would you imagine to save the world (I mean: humanity)?
Dear LizR,
Is math in our heads or is it somehow out there. If it is out
there how does it connect to what is in our heads? If it is all in our
heads, what does that say about Arithmetic Realism? I am trying to get back
to some basic concepts...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM, LizR
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I think it was you that wrote (to me):
I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be
to
The inverse square law is true in Platonia. In the real world it's just a
very good approximation.
How do you know this is true?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King
On 12/20/2013 3:42 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. I learned those figments in college and applied
in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and
its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my
39 matches
Mail list logo
