On 21 Feb 2014, at 23:08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
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
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/frankfurt/Default.aspx
--
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
On 22 Feb 2014, at 06:53, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 20 February 2014 20:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
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
On 22 Feb 2014, at 07:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/21/2014 9:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do
differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of
the observer
which does not enter in the telebox.
I am not sure
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield
a
coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If
John,
Yes, that's my understanding, but that wasn't clear in your original post.
However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally
infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever add
+1) rather than an actual number is understood.
I hate it when
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion and simulation is absolute. Arithmetic can do so many things, but
it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as
not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
Yes, that's my understanding, but that wasn't clear in your original post.
However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally
infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion
Not an illusion, an invariant.
and simulation is absolute.
Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of
substitution).
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
Not an illusion, an invariant.
If it is invariant then it
On 22 Feb 2014, at 02:39, David Nyman wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
Ha ha! I love when he shows the identity cards!
Note that this is among the thought experiences that I call
forbidden on this list, some years ago.
They are shortcuts, and can also provide arguments
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
Not at all. Your 1p-originality is preserved all the time.
I'm not thinking of 1p
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I hate it when otherwise intelligent physicists use infinite in the sense
of just really really big!
I hate that too, in fact I take pride in not using the word infinite
unless a proper subset of the thing can be put into
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's, but his
view is just of Helsinki. Perhaps you mean the future 1
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily
yield a
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
On 2/21/2014 2:27 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I am in agreement but I am guessing humankind does not yet possess a working
LTFR that could power a large city. Nor, is a MSR (molten salt
John,
First Linde didn't prove eternal inflation as you claim. Eternal
inflation is a theory. In fact you yourself admit this when you write IF
Linde is correct...
Basically the bounding problem of any physical infinity is that it would
take infinite energy over infinite time to 'achieve'
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually
exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring
The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only reproduces
a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
--
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
Ghibbsa,
Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks nature
what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise are good
ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES reality. It
doesn't make it more complex as you claim. And in fact it
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally
towards its path as though it
Brent,
What problem do you think P-time has in SR? I see none. Have you been
following my discussion with Jesse as to why it is possible to correlate
proper times (the twins own actual ages) 1:1 for the twins all along their
worldlines in a frame independent way simply by comparing the
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
All,
I have a big gripe about how physicists misuse (in my judgement) the whole
notion of Planck units as if they somehow were the minimum possible units
of various physical quantities such as time and length.
It has become fashionable whenever physicists want to refer to the minimum
sizes of
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this
term?) function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old
simulation argument, served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked
arduously on this concept over the last, few, years, is mathematician,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:37:06PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To quote from the abstract:
If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity
comparable to the speed of
I'll give it a go. Us Kiwis have a rep for punching above our weight in
physics, what with radioactivity and rotating black holes, to name but two
(I hestitate to mention powered flight) so who knows, he may be onto
something.
On 23 February 2014 12:20, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
But from the links you yourself provide:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O
To
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?)
function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument,
served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
OK, maybe I won't bother with it after all. (My time is a bit limited...!)
On 23 February 2014 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for
this term?) function because
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
write this, whether or not you know what that is?
3. Do you agree that we can both agree on those two ages?
4. Do you agree that
On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your
questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have
Maybe Edgar should start the Edgar-thing list, where he *does* have
the unique
power to dictate what will be discussed.
--
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
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
Not Jesse, but yes.
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
write this, whether or not you know
Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in
a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How
can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone
in the world except a few members of the block universe cult believe
On 23 February 2014 16:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the block universe creates the effect of flowing time, as it must
if the idea is not to be summarily dismissed, this isn't an issue.
Would you like to take a small bet? I wager that Edgar will completely
ignore
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly
entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible
world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the
continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e.
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The
On 22 Feb 2014, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's,
No. The
On 23 Feb 2014, at 01:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the
credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call
Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself,
today.
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark (with the above pap =
the FPI of step 3):
The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only
reproduces a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
OK, but the MWI is a big thing, relying on another big thing: QM.
The FPI assumes
On 23 Feb 2014, at 06:21, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent
to the
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is
directly entailed by CTM. In fact
53 matches
Mail list logo
