Yes, I know that one. So I will add to my wish list ... and I continue to
dream!
:-)
On 21 December 2013 12:53, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 21 December 2013 13:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
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
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953.pdf
Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
Andreas Albrecht, Daniel Phillips
(Submitted on 5 Dec 2012)
We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of
probabilities
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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
Hi Jason,
That is a beautifully clear explanation of how assuming comp leads to the
existence of self aware beings within arithmetic realism. You have shown
that philosophical debate can also be poetry!
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb 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 matter is only the result of the FPI
on
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Paul King
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 suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by
someone
Hello Stephen,
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?
The UD emulates itself infinitely often, with all codes, that is:
relatively to all universal numbers.
Is there a relationship.
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
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
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
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?
Mathematicians simulate other objects and realities using their heads,
On 20 Dec 2013, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:
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
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
What specifically?
The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism.
All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there.
I learned those figments in
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:09, John Clark wrote:
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.
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:
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
On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can
you list the implicit assumptions?
I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional
research - now reduced in
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:43, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
What specifically?
The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical
realism. All the rest is a logical deduction
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse,
a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
http://www.newhaven.edu/Faculty-Staff-Profiles/Nikodem-Poplawski/
1. arXiv:1310.8014 http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8014
[pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8014
, ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1310.8014, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1310.8014
]
Schwinger's
Richard:
*.Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a
bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe - and:*
*...What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single multiverse
rather than than multiple multiverses...*
feeling free to fantasize -
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of
mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist.
If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind
us of
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:24:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
The unexpected surprise is the jump up the reductionist food chain in
the last frame.
Right, but its only surprising because there is something that we expect to
be irreducible which is being reduced.
On 20 December 2013
All,
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book
on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers
(math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that
continually computes the
On Friday, December 20, 2013 5:26:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
physical sciences - at least on a mthematical justification of theorems.
Even Bruno's we see is suspect: we *THINK* we see, in adjusted ways as we
can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:13:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2013, at 15:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:23:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Craig,
That is the very well known attempt by Lucas to use Gödel's theorem to
refute
Dear Edgar Owen: thanks for a post with reason. I am sorry to be too old to
read your (any?) book so I take it from your present communication. You
wrote among others:
*...Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is
mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of
mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist.
If you
I had a question about the quote below of Edgar's. In what sense of
'compute' do you believe that something computes reality? Also, I'm
wondering if Laplace's demon is relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
According to the article, we have:
In 2008, David
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book
on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
Cool, it sounds quite interesting. I've added it to my wish list.
Marchal is on the right
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise,
if a change in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about
10^44 times a second; and a consciousness that never changes is not a
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view,
it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth
2013/12/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view,
it was never mentioned. So
On 21 December 2013 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a
Oops sorry you weren't replying to me. I should have read the complete
thread before I answered.
:-(
On 22 December 2013 08:43, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 December 2013 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 22:18,
On 22 December 2013 04:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:24:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
The unexpected surprise is the jump up the reductionist food chain in
the last frame.
Right, but its only surprising because there is something that we
Also, part of the joke is the hubris / chutzpah of the interviewee, who is
attempting to parlay a degree (or whatever it is) in comparative literature
into a job at CERN (or wherever it is).
On 22 December 2013 08:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 December 2013 04:56, Craig Weinberg
I don't have time to read many books (although I managed to get almost half
way through BOI). However, can you explain what you mean about the universe
being based on something that is running ? That seems to rely on the
prior existence of time, which is one of the things a TOE should probably
be
Reality is analogous to a running software program. Godel's Theorem does
not apply. A human could speculate as to whether any particular state of
Reality could ever arise computationally and it might be impossible to
determine that, but again that has nothing to do with the actual operation
of
On 22 December 2013 07:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view,
it
On 21 December 2013 11:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise!
Immaterial indeed :-)
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?
--
You
On 12/20/2013 3:52 PM, Edgar Owen wrote:
All,
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality
available on Amazon under my name.
Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a
running logical structure analogous
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of
integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words,
can its
proof be found?
If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required
Hi Brent,
I don't like these types of truth predicates since they are Platonic in
their assumptions, as if statements do not even involve or relate to finite
entities like ourselves or, more relevant to my own work, real world
computers. Consider a paper by Lou Kauffman that considers a local
Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the first
Google Group I'm on.
First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take quite a
while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the moderator(s).
Second I thought I set my settings to get all
Hi John,
First thanks for the complement on my post!
To address your points. Of course we do have some knowledge of reality. We
have to have to be able to function within it which we most certainly do to
varying degrees of competence. That is proof we do have sufficient
knowledge of reality
On 12/21/2013 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953.pdf
Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
Andreas Albrecht http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Albrecht_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Daniel
Phillips
http://t.co/cFfMA7zzPB
Adult Swim has been quietly airing this fake infomercial for For-Profit
Online University all this week at 4am. *FPOU* is a one-off special from
a conglomerate of former *Onion *writers called Wild Aggressive
Doghttps://twitter.com/wildaggressive,
which is made up
For me, the critical issue for accounting for everything under a single
reality theory is what I call the Presentation Problem. In simple terms,
there is no logical reason for the logical universe to produce shapes,
colors, flavors, or feelings of any kind when we already know that
information
50 matches
Mail list logo