On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe comes to exist and if it comes
into existence all at once, or a bit at a time (or something like
that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly
what it
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. The only thing lagging is the AI.
More or less, but AI is a bit relative. I agree with Hofstadter
AI is when the program are not yet written, and once written we
take them as conventional
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
On 01 Feb 2014, at 23:29, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, allow me NOT to repeat the entire shabang with only
'interjecing' some remarks.
My main problem is the theorem (theory, hypothesis or
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
That can convince the inner god (the soul, S4Grz) of
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to
disarm it as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of non-sequiturs
couched
On 2/3/2014 12:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
That can convince
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have no problem with (what I understand of) Bruno's schema, except
that like all computational or information-theoretic schemas, it
places logical objects before sensory subjects and fails to identify
the aesthetic monism beneath the two.
On 2/3/2014 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the significance of
the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it as insouciantly
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:26, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 02:37, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Chalmers knows he has put his finger on a stark contradiction - a
paradox in fact - and he is intellectually honest enough to
acknowledge its force. He shows that it should lead us to
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:28, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. The only thing lagging is the AI.
More or less, but AI is a bit relative. I agree with Hofstadter
AI is when the program are not yet
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to
disarm it as
On 03 Feb 2014, at 00:19, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote (among many others) on Feb 1 in replying to my post of
Jan 31:
...mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that
the machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical
truth.
Then, yes, for the
On 03 Feb 2014, at 05:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 4:43 PM, David Nyman wrote:
As Brent has remarked, it is still possible to hold on to the hope
that the physical appearances, however much they appear to be
exhaustive and causally closed, still conceal some truly unexpected
On 03 Feb 2014, at 09:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 12:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 09:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota
the significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not
Oh, and I should of course mention The Pirates! Band of Misfits from
Aardman (makers of Wallace and Gromit) which is the source of my new
avatar.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often remarked, the
past is a block and the universe keeps adding new moments and growing. This
would be like Barbour's time capsules, except just sticking everything
On 3 Feb 2014, at 5:14 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.
The Prestige is absolutely fantabuloso. Hugh Jackman - what can I say. You need
an Aussie to carry it off, now don't you...Dave Bowie as Nikola Tesla -
very schmick.
I think I may have seen '2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY' about 30 times by now.
Actually, I can lie on a couch and simply play the entire film in my head - I
don't even need to hire the disc! The music helps of course, because Kubrick's
matching of great classical pieces to tech wizardry and the whole
On 2 February 2014 21:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Whether the consciousness is epiphenomenal or not is irrelevant.
Right. The problem is that epiphenomenalism is a step toward justifying the
consciousness and conscience eliminations.
It makes also consciousness unnatural, not
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:57:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5,
On 03 Feb 2014, at 14:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that diminishes its
importance in any way, let alone eliminates it. It is consistent with
evolution since it is not an optional extra: if intelligence evolved
then
On 03 Feb 2014, at 00:35, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe comes to exist and if it comes
into existence all at once, or a bit at a time (or something like
that).
I wish I could
Hi Russell and everyone
Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I
find something I like.
My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something
in there that could help a wiki construction.
As I recall I once a very long time ago
On 03 Feb 2014, at 12:09, Kim Jones wrote:
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often
remarked, the past is a block and the universe keeps adding new
moments and growing. This would be like Barbour's
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 14:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious
being but can't emulate a desk?
I am not saying that. I am saying that the desk apparent
Hi Bruno,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In a nocturnal dream, OK. With comp when awake we are in infinities of
such dreams, and comp explains why this has to interfere statistically
below our common substitution level.
When dreaming, there are still
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you troll as a hobby or professionally?
Oh I think you could call me a professional by now, in fact because I've
been making many of these exact same points since the early 1990s I have
been given an award by the
I think more fitting initials would be D K (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Terren
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg
On 03 Feb 2014, at 13:06, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 February 2014 21:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Whether the consciousness is epiphenomenal or not is irrelevant.
Right. The problem is that epiphenomenalism is a step toward
justifying the
consciousness and
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.
A very good movie.
There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.
One of the best movies of all time.
I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block
Concerning The Lathe of Heaven, make sure you see the 1980 version, the
one made in 2002 wasn't nearly as good.
John K Clark
--
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,
Good suggestions. 12 Monkeys is also a good depiction of time travel in a
block universe--and for a comedy take, the Bill Ted movies fit together
perfectly with block time as well! (as long as you take for granted that
the historical figures they bring along never spoke publicly about their
trips
On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent
conscious being but can't emulate a desk?
I am not
On 2/3/2014 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 09:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2014 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the significance
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:01 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.
A very good movie.
There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.
One of the best movies of
On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:15, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In a nocturnal dream, OK. With comp when awake we are in
infinities of such dreams, and comp explains why this has to
interfere statistically below our
Liz,
Two points in response:
1. Despite what you and Telmo claim we do directly observe change (the flow
of time) independent of memory. Cognitive and neural science both clearly
demonstrate that though you don't seem to be familiar with those results.
2. Even the comparison of past memories
On 2/3/2014 7:26 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that diminishes its
importance in any way, let alone eliminates it. It is consistent with
On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 14:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 3 February 2014 19:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My view is that it is not physically undetectable. We just don't know how
to detect it yet. In Bruno's theory a computer whose program is Lobian is
conscious. How would we detect that? By querying the computer. By
studying
I assume error in both myself and others, but I assume smugness-related
error in those who cite Dunning Kruger.
On Monday, February 3, 2014 12:20:05 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
I think more fitting initials would be D K (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to
John,
A couple of points in response.
Yes, I agree that both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than
their own DURING the trip. This is standard relativity theory mostly
Lorentz transform if we just take non-accelerated relative motion. Also
note that, contrary to your statement,
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:21:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have no problem with (what I understand of) Bruno's schema, except that
like all computational or information-theoretic schemas, it places logical
objects before sensory
Brent wrote 2-2-14:
*Finite means finished, complete, boundedBrent*
Sounds good enough for me. Except for the 'complete': an incomplete
statement can also be finite.
Thanks
John M
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Russell wrote Jan 26:
.*.We must make sure we have backups this time!*.
How about on paper? E.g. hard copies, like in a millennia-old * L I B R A R
Y ? *
*John Mikes*
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:46:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
Brent
Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
misunderstanding?
It was last
On 4 February 2014 06:19, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you troll as a hobby or professionally?
Oh I think you could call me a professional by now, in fact because I've
been making many of these exact
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Russell and everyone
Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I
find something I like.
My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something
in there that
On 2/3/2014 12:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 19:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
My view is that it is not physically undetectable. We just don't know how
to detect
it yet. In Bruno's theory a computer whose program is Lobian is
On 2/3/2014 12:23 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent and Bruno here is the main question: what would you identify*REALITY*
by?
Reality is that which we hope to approach by reification of the ontology of our
best theories.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:45:43PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
Russell wrote Jan 26:
.*.We must make sure we have backups this time!*.
How about on paper? E.g. hard copies, like in a millennia-old * L I B R A R
Y ? *
*John Mikes*
That's funny - I used to use paper backup copies in my
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:19:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
comforting, but it's just superstition..
In your theory perhaps. But then my body
On 4 February 2014 02:26, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that diminishes its
importance in any way, let alone eliminates it. It is consistent with
evolution since
On 4 Feb 2014, at 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What did you mean by reading numbers?
I imagine the UD as a kind of 'playhead' or 'read head' in a digital device
that scans encoded information. The difference of course being that there is no
output. The lack of output is
On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:59:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/16/2014 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The body does not produces consciousness, it only make it possible for
consciousness to
Liz,
Great recommendations, and excellent topic idea.
The Prestige is the movie that got me interested in these topics and led me
to this list. Also, for US viewers, Chronochrimes goes by Timecrimes and
is available under netflix under that title. I found it to be the first
realistic portrayal
On 3 February 2014 21:25, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 02:26, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that diminishes its
On 3 February 2014 05:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But of course he must still elucidate the psycho-physical principles he
seeks, in order to build a bridge from the relation of acquaintance to that
of function and I don't think even he would claim to have achieved that
On 4 February 2014 09:29, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
A couple of points in response.
Yes, I agree that both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than
their own DURING the trip. This is standard relativity theory mostly
Lorentz transform if we just take
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:44:08 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe comes to exist and if it comes into
existence all at once, or a bit at a time (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it
was. But I haven't
On 2/3/2014 2:29 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 21:25, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 02:26, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
mailto:da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou
On 4 February 2014 11:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a
great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better
idea.
Good, that was the point. A lot of people seemed to be attacking it on the
basis of straw
That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it?
--
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
On 2 February 2014 18:53, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I will come back on this when I have time
Thanks.
but - to continue my suggestions re SF stories - Flux by Michael
Moorcock addresses the momentary frog question rather nicely.
Philosophically, at least, it is always possible that we
On 3 February 2014 23:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think that when we can build a general AI to specification that will
be the end of the hard problem of consciousness.
Do you mean FAPP, or do you personally take the view that there is no
remainder problem of consciousness (to
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an
implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for
developing
I will try to precis Flux at some point - in the meantime, here are a few
comments (Flux was written in 1963, by Moorcock and Barrington Bayley -
my favourite fantasy and SF writers, respectively).
`Flux' is a sardonic retelling of the H. G. Wells classic tale `The Time
Machine'. In a near-future
On 3 February 2014 23:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Sometimes a problem hangs around a long time because people have a
prejudice that the answer must take a certain form. People thought about
gravity in terms of What is it about things that makes some of them want
to go down and
Brent,
First thanks for recommending Epstein's book Relativity Visualized. It
turns out though that I seem to have independently invented 'Epstein
diagrams' myself since I use them both in my book and in my 1997 paper.
However I always thought the concept was obvious and never even thought of
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an
implication of
Ta very much :)
On 3 February 2014 23:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I will try to precis Flux at some point - in the meantime, here are a few
comments (Flux was written in 1963, by Moorcock and Barrington Bayley -
my favourite fantasy and SF writers, respectively).
`Flux' is a sardonic
On 2/3/2014 3:12 PM, LizR wrote:
That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it?
Uh Oh! Now you've defined reality as finite. Bruno may make your possible stay after
modal school necessary. :-)
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Liz,
You keep missing my point. There is NO inertial frame in this example,
neither A nor B's frame is inertial.
Neither A nor B are in an inertial frame in this example. The specific
point of the example is that they BOTH experience exactly the same
NON-inertial 1g acceleration for the
On 2/3/2014 3:19 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 23:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I think that when we can build a general AI to specification that will be
the end
of the hard problem of consciousness.
Do you mean FAPP, or do you
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein
believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual
quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim.
On 3 February 2014 23:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's hard to say. I think conscious thought will be found to a class of
thoughts and there will be degrees of consciousness and it will be
complicated and the Hard Problem will be seen to have been overly
simplistic. It may have
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both
imply the existence of a block universe.
I've
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 4 February 2014 02:26, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:
wrote:
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou
stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that
On 4 February 2014 12:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 3:12 PM, LizR wrote:
That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it?
Uh Oh! Now you've defined reality as finite. Bruno may make your
possible stay after modal school necessary. :-)
Well that may not
On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something
extra and optional. If you could see that it was logically entailed by
certain physical
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
the edge of relativity or at its
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual
quotes from them but you have been unable to
Liz, Liz, Liz!
OK, now you ADMIT that neither Newton or Einstein believed in block time.
Thanks!
Your claim that their theories imply (thanks for using the soft imply
rather than prove) block time is just your erroneous interpretation in an
attempt to lend weight to your own belief.
Your use
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity.
This can be tested experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about
On 2/3/2014 4:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 23:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
That's hard to say. I think conscious thought will be found to a class of
thoughts
and there will be degrees of consciousness and it will be complicated
Oh dear, you really don't have a clue, do you? OK, that's it. I foolishly
replied to one or two of your posts in the hope you'd magically grown up,
but I can't be bothered with this level of willful ignorance and infantile
nonsense. I'll let you get on with scoring imaginary points, and stick with
On 4 February 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 4:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 23:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's hard to say. I think conscious thought will be found to a class of
thoughts and there will be degrees of
All,
Mach's Principle (to explain Newton's Bucket) is an important principle
that has profound implications. I provide a novel theory in my book on
Reality (available on Amazon under my name) which I think is convincing.
It's a consequence of a fairly detailed theory explaining how spacetime
Jesse,
That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances
it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving
family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken metaphorically at times and
even to seemingly contradict himself on occasion (eg. on religious
All FYI only, Edgar
Abraham Loeb, 2014. The habitable epoch of the early universe.
arXiv:1312.0613v2 [6pp]. ABSTRACT. In the redshift range 100(1+z)137, the
cosmic microwave background (CMB) had a temperature of 273-373K (0-100
degrees Celsius), allowing early rocky planets (if any existed) to
On 2/3/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/3/2014 4:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 23:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's hard to
Liz,
Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a
real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and
retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments changed
their belief system! Goodness gracious, can't let that happen...
:-)
Oh yes, many other things as well as scary.
I would add to my recommendations the TV play The Giftie by the way,
which I should have thought of earlier!
On 4 February 2014 14:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:57, meekerdb
I pressed the wrong button ... meant to add this to my last post
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086852/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5
On 4 February 2014 14:46, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yes, many other things as well as scary.
I would add to my recommendations the TV play The Giftie by the way,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:30:42PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All FYI only, Edgar
Abraham Loeb, 2014. The habitable epoch of the early universe.
arXiv:1312.0613v2 [6pp]. ABSTRACT. In the redshift range 100(1+z)137, the
cosmic microwave background (CMB) had a temperature of 273-373K (0-100
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
