On 19 Feb 2014, at 18:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:46:40 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest
computer-assisted proof. It is as large as the entire content of
Wikipedia, making it unlikely that will ever
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding
the argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but
On 19 Feb 2014, at 20:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding
the argument that you can't meet
On 19 Feb 2014, at 21:53, John Mikes wrote:
Another silly question:
Bruno and List: how on Earth can we talk aboput TOE? (unless we
restrict it to the presently knowable inventory
of physically identified E).
Why should we restrict ourselves to the knowable inventory of
physically
On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon
On 20 Feb 2014, at 05:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2014 7:10 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:34:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Which ones? How can unobserved facts exist?
You can observe their consequences without
On 20 Feb 2014, at 06:59, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:53:23PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:31PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
I think we're talking past one another. You're talking about
ontology as the
On 20 Feb 2014, at 02:57, chris peck wrote:
Hi Quentin
They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question
asked. So I'll try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with
simple yes/no questions and explanation from your part.
So I will first describe the setup and will
On 20 February 2014 09:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2014, at 05:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2014 7:10 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:34:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Which ones? How
Hi Liz,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 08:49, LizR wrote:
On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the last questions to proceed. Any
problem?
Well, nothing apart from going on a mini holiday with an old friend
for the last 4
On 20 Feb 2014, at 11:55, David Nyman wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2014, at 05:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2014 7:10 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:34:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
should be possible to devise two independent different proof checker... if
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest
computer-assisted proof. It is as large
Liz,
More notes from the asylum?
What is your mouth for LIz? If you claim it's not for communicating with
external reality perhaps it needn't be wagged so much?
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:21:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 20 February 2014 08:31, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/flowchartfinal.jpg
http://multisenserealism.com/2014/02/20/philosophy-of-mind-flowchart/
The idea here is that if we want to take the full spectrum of phenomena
into account, we have to either begin with a reductionist realism and work
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:00:25 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:54, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of last week.
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who could
say exactly the same thing, so more specificity is needed.
and
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:15 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 20 February 2014 00:20,
Hi Telmo,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 13:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count
as mathematics? That's the intriguing
On 2/20/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Feb 2014, at 05:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/18/2014 7:10 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:34:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Which ones? How can unobserved facts exist?
On 20 Feb 2014, at 14:36, David Nyman wrote:
On 20 February 2014 11:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2014, at 11:55, David Nyman wrote:
snip
I think we're talking past one another. You're talking about
ontology as the ur-stuff that's really real. I'm talking about
Hi ghibbsa,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:19, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno,
You've said somewhere in this thread that by logic comp cannot be
incomplete because it's a religious position.
Hmm... OK.
No doubt
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:58, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:00:25 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:54, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of
last week.
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who
could say exactly the
On 21 February 2014 02:13, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
More notes from the asylum?
What is your mouth for LIz? If you claim it's not for communicating with
external reality perhaps it needn't be wagged so much?
I see you're still being rude, unpleasant and stupid. OK, I
On 21 February 2014 00:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks for telling me, so that I avoid any paranoia, like did I say
something impolite or what
Never that!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Hi Liz
Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter
transmitter sends you to another solar system where you will live out
the reminder of your life. Maybe you committed some crime and this is
the consequence, to be transported :) A malfunction causes you
to be duplicated and sent to both
Hi Bruno
By and large you didn't get my response to Quentin and largely the comments you
made didn't actually address the comments I was making, or the questions I was
asking Quentin. It seems more as if you were addressing comments you hoped I
was making but didn't. With respect then I've
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
system A is 1. I can't assign a probability of seeing Solar System B if I
don't know about the possibility of accidents. But,
If I know that there is a
On 2/19/2014 10:09 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no sense in which an observer in an accelerating elevator in
the flat
spacetime of special relativity could correctly
Hi Russel
This contradicts Kolmogorov's 4th axiom of probability, namely that the
probability of the certain event = 1.
Yes it does doesnt it.
But thats ok. Im not convinced Kolmogorov had MWI in view when he dreamt up his
axioms and Im too green behind the ears vis a vis probability axioms
On 21 Feb 2014, at 05:36, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
By and large you didn't get my response to Quentin and largely the
comments you made didn't actually address the comments I was making,
or the questions I was asking Quentin. It seems more as if you were
addressing comments you hoped
On 21 Feb 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
On 21 February 2014 00:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks for telling me, so that I avoid any paranoia, like did I say
something impolite or what
Never that!
OK, thanks. Best,
Bruno
--
You received this message because you
Ok, then you simply reject probability usage in both scenario... then
you're consistent unlike John... but if you reject such usage, that's
throwing an axe on MWI explanation... then I can't see how you could still
agree with many world interpretation and reject probability, that's not
35 matches
Mail list logo
