On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting with every possible
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar
Cowboy
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 7:53 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: everything list note :)
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Chris de Morsella
On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:47, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If you remember Cantor, you see that if we take all variables into
account, the multiverse is already a continuum. OK? A world is
defined by a infinite sequence like true, false, false,
Liz, Richard:
I´m not talking about global reduction of entropy neither of the
universe neither a star, planet of black hole, but a local decrease of
entropy at the cost of a (bigger) increase of entropy in the
surroundings, so that the global entropy grows.
I mean local. A computation becomes
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I also find it unlikely that the subst level is above the
quantum level. Or at least I think that if it's at the
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And to answer this properly, you have to define physical
existence of Brent without using arithmetic.
Brent:=the being who typed this sentence. (Or next time you're in
California, come by and I'll give
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in the axioms, which is the case
for
Thanks for the info. It is very interesting and It helps in many ways.
The problem with mathematical notation is that it is good to store and
systematize knowledge, not to make it understandable. The transmission
of knowledge can only be done by replaying the historical process that
produces the
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Is it possible for a Computation to be a Model also? What is the
obstruction?
?
Is it possible for an apple to be an orange?
Computation are very special abstract, yet of a syntactical nature,
relations (between
On 21 Jan 2014, at 02:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem not to appreciate that this dissipates the one
On 21 Jan 2014, at 04:20, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 14:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 20 Jan 2014, at 20:18, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
There are obviously a lot of very intelligent members here who are
well read in modern science. I think everyone would agree with this.
However the usual MO of group members (true of most groups) is
simply to argue for their own
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true, and
the Hameroff-Penrose thesis that microtubules are da' bomb,
There is a big difference between Penrose and Hameroff.
Penrose disbelieve comp. The soul in Penrose is not
On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:40, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:33:31PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:39, Russell Standish wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not
optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the
On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:54, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:35:13AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:14, Russell Standish wrote:
Well yes, that is certainly arguable, and I'm indeed somewhat
critical
of the notion myself. But is not my concept - it is the
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true, and the
Hameroff-Penrose thesis that microtubules are da' bomb,
There is a big difference between Penrose and Hameroff.
On 21 Jan 2014, at 01:05, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:28:03AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
Re the creativity question - it is still an open problem, ISTM.
I think this is solved. Creativity = Universality. (Turing
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
To answer your questions sequentially.
I don't see any way the arithmetical true relations compute or
emulate anything.
I agree this is not obvious. But it is known by all experts in the
field.
That is already present in Gödel
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Jan
On 21 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Pierz wrote:
The question is whether a whole universe is created for each state
in a superposition. Deutsch seems unequivocal that it is.
Hmm, Deutsch might have change his mind. he was also sure that there
is a base problem, but he changes on it.
Liz is right.
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital computer.
OK. That's a good definition, and it is correct if ... we assume
Church's thesis.
So everything
On 21 Jan 2014, at 05:22, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The notion that computation produces information contradicts the
notion that information is conserved
made famous by the black hole paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
The evolution of the wave function is
On 20 Jan 2014, at 20:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
The idea that I am pursuing here is how to think of Becoming in a
way that is consistent with comp.
You have to think about it as an indexical. The logic of becoming, and
why it is so crucial for us, is guven by S4Grz1.
On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:43, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire
universe splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is
On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:01:03 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Here's one more theory from the many in my book on Reality:
As Misner, Thorne and Wheeler note briefly in their book on Gravitation,
INTERgalactic space is continually expanding with the Hubble expansion,
however
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true,
and the Hameroff-Penrose thesis that microtubules are da' bomb,
There is a
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true, and
the Hameroff-Penrose thesis
On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 6:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, meekerdb
PIerz,
No, you are wrong here. Space doesn't expand around objects without the
objects moving along with it. The positions of objects are positions IN
space. Thus there is not a smooth expansion but the warping around galaxies
I've pointed out.
If you were correct the Hubble expansion of
On 21 Jan 2014, at 16:55, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum
Bruno,
You continue to avoid the actual question. How does a static reality of all
true arithmetic in Platonia actually result in change and the flow of time?
You just claim everyone knows it.
Until you can give a convincing answer to that your theory can't be taken
seriously.
Just
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital computer.
OK. That's a good
On 21 Jan 2014, at 17:45, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:22:34 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
PIerz,
No, you are wrong here. Space doesn't expand around objects without the
objects moving along with it. The positions of objects are positions IN
space. Thus there is not a smooth expansion but the warping around
On 21 Jan 2014, at 17:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You continue to avoid the actual question. How does a static reality
of all true arithmetic in Platonia actually result in change and the
flow of time? You just claim everyone knows it.
Where. I just said (see below) that everybody
Gibbsa,
No, you misunderstand what I'm saying.
Of course the hubble rate can keep on going, passing the speed of light
barrier, and forever onward and upward. Because, and precisely because,
it's not generated by a physical translation in space.
I agree with that and that's exactly what I'm
On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It is a phisical definition of computation in the physical world, to
distinguish what physical phenomena are computations and what are not.
I don´t care about mathematical oddities.
But nobody has found such a definition. Physical
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English. Just requoting some abstract mathematical
proof won't suffice unless you can prove it actually applies. If there is
really a way to get motion from stasis you should be able to simply state
Pierz,
How about a $100 bet on whose theory of
On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:42:59 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
Haha.
Edgar, I have also modified my views through participation on this list.
As it has for Liz, Bruno's comp has become borderline credible to me,
though I am far from a true
Pierz,
How about a $100 bet on who's right about spacetime expansion? You or
Misner, Thorne, Wheeler and me?
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:42:59 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
Haha.
Edgar, I have also modified my views through participation on this list.
As it has for Liz, Bruno's
Jason, this link doesn't work...
Edgar
On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:49:20 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
It looks like I need to update the database connection information:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as
useful as any
Dear Edgar,
We can get to the root of the obstruction, perhaps, is the nature of
perception. If perception, physically speaking, is the mere matching
between some bit of the world to some bit in the brain (or whatever is
running the recursively enumerable functions) then this would match up
Stephen,
It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with things
moving. The current information state of the entire universe is continually
being computed whether it's being perceived by anyone or not. Perception
has nothing to do with it except apparently in the erroneous
Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with things
moving.
No, No! Not moving in a space- changing position coordinates, but some
form of motion. For example, the spin of an
2014/1/21 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
As we say in french C'est l'hôpital qui se fout de la charité...
Quentin
Just requoting some abstract mathematical proof won't suffice
Stephen,
Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in the
sense of being actively computed. That's what I am talking about. Thought
that was understood...
And I do NOT take perception as passive. It's an ACTIVE computation, a
computational interaction with the program
On 1/21/2014 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in
On 1/21/2014 2:14 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Thanks for the info. It is very interesting and It helps in many ways.
The problem with mathematical notation is that it is good to store and
systematize knowledge, not to make it understandable. The transmission
of knowledge can only be done by
On 1/21/2014 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Is it possible for a Computation to be a Model also? What is the obstruction?
?
Is it possible for an apple to be an orange?
Computation are very special abstract, yet of a
On 1/21/2014 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 02:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb
On 1/21/2014 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only to make the UDA non valid. It works, if Brent meant a mathematical ultrafinitism.
But this change comp, like it changes elementary arithmetic (which suppose at least that
0 ≠ s(x), and x ≠ y implies s(x) ≠ s(y), which can't be true in
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:18:16AM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:01:03 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Here's one more theory from the many in my book on Reality:
As Misner, Thorne and Wheeler note briefly in their book on Gravitation,
On 1/21/2014 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is already present in Gödel 1931, and today we know that even just one diophantine
(on integeres) polynomial of degree four can emulated all computations; or be Turing
universal.
Just to check that I understand what that means: There is a
How would you guys collect on this friendly bet? What evidence would
definitively prove who is right?
-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the
Spud,
We could always ask Kip Thorne who is a of course a leading authority on
gravitation to judge. I'm just repeating what his book says.
If anyone has the book Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler explain this
on page 718.
I also ran this dark matter theory by Leonard Susskind a couple
Russell,
Sure of course. To repeat what I've already said above, the actual effects
will be extremely complex simply because the actual distribution of matter
is extremely complex and varies with time. One would need to actually
calculate the cumulative effects over time of the warping and
On 1/21/2014 5:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Pierz wrote:
The question is whether a whole universe is created for each state in a superposition.
Deutsch seems unequivocal that it is.
Hmm, Deutsch might have change his mind. he was also sure that there is a base
Stephen,
OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that.
2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA can also be discounted for the same reason
block time can be, that there is no way to get movement out of it?
3. Do you agree
Stephen,
Typo alert. That should obviously be Bruno's UDA, not USA!
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:24:24 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that.
2. Do you
On 1/21/2014 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why would you want to do that? It seems like an unnecessary extra axiom that doesn't
have any purpose or utility.
It prevents the paradoxes of undeciability, Cantor diagonalization, and it corresponds
more directly with how we actually use arithmetic.
Dear Edgar,
Cool! We are making progress in understanding each other. :-) Let me get
into some details, where the devil is!
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in the
sense of
On 22 January 2014 07:27, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.
Talk about pot and kettle!
--
You received this message because you
Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that.
good!
2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA can also be discounted for
On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you?
Heinz performs the magic trick of convincing us that the familiar objects
of our
existence can be seen to be nothing more than tokens for
Dear LizR,
Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of
ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging these assumptions
and thus as to use a mixture of poetry and math to explain and elaborate
the idea.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
(This and a few other everything-list messages were sent to my email box,
and I noticed that I hadn't seen them on the Google Groups website. Sure
enough, they're not visible there. I searched for them, and they show up
in the search list, but if I click on them, Google Groups crashes. Any
idea
Dear Gage,
Are you attempting to view the Google group from a Google+ or Gmail
environment?
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Gabe Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
(This and a few other everything-list messages were sent to my email box,
and I noticed that I hadn't seen them on the Google
Wow! Cool.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Hi Stephen,
I'm viewing these emails from Gmail. They don't show up on the list at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/everything-list whether I am logged
out or logged in. However, I can search for them on that webpage. If I
click the search results, a fresh installation of Chrome fails to
Dear Gabe,
You may need to purge your browser's cache. Google Groups tend to turn
the browser into a resource hog.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Gabe Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I'm viewing these emails from Gmail. They don't show up on the list at
On 22 January 2014 10:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Spud,
We could always ask Kip Thorne who is a of course a leading authority on
gravitation to judge. I'm just repeating what his book says.
If anyone has the book Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler explain
this on page
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Oh! You did not answer:
((COLD WET) - ICE) - ((COLD - ICE) V (WET - ICE))
So what? Afraid of the logician's trick? Or of the logician's madness? Try
this one if you are afraid to be influenced by your intuition aboutCOLD,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:08:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
They talk about changes spreading out, perhaps gradually. ISTM that some
changes aren't going to propagate very far or very fast. So the universe is
full of bubbles in which there are a lot of local branches and I guess
spaces in which they
No bet I'm afraid. I'm happy to concede on this point. When I think about
it further, it makes sense that space must not expand in zones where
gravity keeps objects from separating due to cosmological expansion. As a
very well educated non-physicist/cosmologist, I've had occasion to be wrong
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2014 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why would you want to do that? It seems like an unnecessary extra axiom
that doesn't have any purpose or utility.
It prevents the paradoxes of undeciability, Cantor
On 1/21/2014 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2014 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why would you want to do that? It seems like an unnecessary extra axiom that
doesn't have any
Liz,
Didn't ask him about p-time...
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:13:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 10:02, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Spud,
We could always ask Kip Thorne who is a of course a leading authority on
gravitation to judge. I'm just
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But I see nothing that would imply that a rational agent is
predictable or that he could not make a random choice.
Brent
Because assuming that more than one choice is available, and that they
all having differing values of
On 21 January 2014 17:22, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that computation produces information contradicts the notion
that information is conserved
I suggested that computation *transforms* information, not *produces* it.
Most logical operations lose information (NAND
On 21 January 2014 22:44, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, Richard:
I´m not talking about global reduction of entropy neither of the
universe neither a star, planet of black hole, but a local decrease of
entropy at the cost of a (bigger) increase of entropy in the
On 1/21/2014 4:01 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:41:46PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 14:18, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking about this and it occurs to me that firstly, the
single history is only partially true. Since quantum interference
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:32:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or unpredictable) behaviour can be rational don't fit it, even
though most people think
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an open-ended creativity. Well, certainly in the
sense of Post (I can explain this, but it is a bit
On 22 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:32:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps
formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that
random (or
On 22 January 2014 13:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I can concede that making a random choice amongst options of equal
and optimal utility could satisfy the definition of rational as a
borderline case, but I like the picture of Robby the robot saying
that doesn't compute
It seems to me that differentiation is local, and spreads slowly, and that
there is always going to be some remerging (but only in proportion to the
chances of entropy reversing). The an atom starts in a superposition of
decayed and non-decayed. Now a cat is in a superposition of alive and dead.
iirc Dark Matter was discovered around 1933 by measuring the velocities of
galaxies in clusters.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:14:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
The problem with that is that it make mysterious all the
intersubjective agreement we found in naive and pre-quantum physics.
You have the paradox of Wigner's friend. Instead of trying to
explain that directly from the wave function it
On 22 January 2014 13:06, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Didn't ask him about p-time...
That's a shame.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
Stephen,
A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later after
I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of your points.
You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some
ontological merit in the idea that Numbers can serve as a fundamental
On 22 January 2014 11:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of
ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging these assumptions
and thus as to use a mixture of poetry and math to explain and
On 22 January 2014 14:03, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What is ultimately mysterious is why observed reality is consistent
with us as observers - the occam catastrophe problem, I mention in
Do you mean consistent between us (i.e. it's mysterious that we agree on
what we're
On 21 January 2014 08:49, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
The idea that I am pursuing here is how to think of Becoming in a way
that is consistent with comp. So far all we have are eternal static
infinite entities.
Pigeon holes ... yes ... but they seem to
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:08:52PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 14:03, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What is ultimately mysterious is why observed reality is consistent
with us as observers - the occam catastrophe problem, I mention in
Do you mean consistent
On 22 January 2014 14:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
No - that it is consistent with oneself, as an observer. Why couldn't
we be a disembodied observer playing a virtual reality game? A p-ghost
as someone put it recently.
Do you mean consistent with (apparently) having a
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:23:12PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 14:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
No - that it is consistent with oneself, as an observer. Why couldn't
we be a disembodied observer playing a virtual reality game? A p-ghost
as someone put it
On 22 January 2014 14:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:23:12PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 14:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
No - that it is consistent with oneself, as an observer. Why couldn't
we be a
Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later after
I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of your points.
You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show
On 1/21/2014 4:13 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But I see nothing that would imply that a rational agent is
predictable or that he could not make a random choice.
Brent
Because assuming that more than one choice is available, and that
Dear LizR,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 11:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Plain English explanations are the problem: they carry a set of
ontological assumptions built it. Kauffman is challenging
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
