On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one,
in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a
On 20 Nov 2014, at 13:59, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same
concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark,
Computationalism has gone trans-tegmark well before Tegmark.
with this. Why not compare the super
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/20/2014 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500,
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The mutiverse is only the quantum configuration space taken
seriously. The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a
unitary transformation) of a state vector in the
On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:07, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell
On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
wrote:
Ah! You
On 21 Nov 2014, at 00:57, George wrote:
Thanks Bruno, Liz and Richard for your responses.
The topic is extremely controversial…
OK.
It took me a few months of sleepless nights to come to term with
these ideas…. but let reason prevail. I am looking forward to an
open and rational
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 7:32:23 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
may be testable.
“A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of
Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new
On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
may be testable.
“A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
The idea that computers are
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
may be testable.
On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:39:14 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM,
You are right. My racewalking buddy and college classmate, a Doctor
Professor (retired) on the Yale Medical School faculty,
is engaged in Big Data regarding reading tissue data as to whether it is
carcinogenic. Right now that is entirely done by visual inspection of
doctors using their personal
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation is easily reversible (and it's
continuous and deterministic too), but with regard to the reversibility of
time that's a irrelevant fact because the SWE is a unobservable
abstraction.
To be sure
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To get something real that you can actually see
I am a platonist. If I see something, I very much doubt it is real ...
Then I don't know what the word real means.
You get all sorts of strange stuff with i, like i^2=i^6 =-1 and
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:06:47 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
I wonder if by now it's worth considering in information-theoretic terms
how the evolution of
On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Interesting
On 11/20/2014 9:07 PM, George wrote:
Brent you are right.
Maxwell distribution is not exponential with energy. For the purpose of comparing the
different distributions, I was attempting to give the same form to all distributions
Maxwell, Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein independently of the
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de
If one considers an exponential distribution such as
e^(-KE-PE)
where PE is a function of elevation
then at ground level one would have
e^(-KE)
and at a given elevation h
e^(-KE-PE) = e^(-PE)e^(-KE)
Renormalizing for the lower density the distribution at elevation becomes
e^(-KE)
which is
On 11/21/2014 2:44 PM, George wrote:
If one considers an exponential distribution such as
e^(-KE-PE)
where PE is a function of elevation
then at ground level one would have
e^(-KE)
and at a given elevation h
e^(-KE-PE) = e^(-PE)e^(-KE)
Renormalizing for the lower density the distribution at
On 17 Nov 2014, at 11:02 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 23:06, Kim Jones wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
I wonder if by now it's worth considering in
On 22 Nov 2014, at 4:59 am, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:06:47 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 03:31, Kim Jones wrote:
I wonder if by now it's worth considering in
Is it possible to explain to a person of modest intelligence such as myself
exacty how you're violating the 2nd law?
(Otherwise I may feel compelled to quote Arthur Eddington...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On 11/21/2014 10:39 PM, LizR wrote:
Is it possible to explain to a person of modest intelligence such as myself exacty how
you're violating the 2nd law?
(Otherwise I may feel compelled to quote Arthur Eddington...)
Loschmidt's idea was that an isolated column of gas in a gravitational field
28 matches
Mail list logo
