2017-09-06 0:13 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>
> >
>> You can insist with all the bad faith you have (and you have more than
>> plenty),
>
>
> Hey Quentin I have a great idea, go fuck yourself.
>
I cannot, the futur I which clearl
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 5/09/2017 2:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:58:57AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>I have no problems with the assumption that all forms of data can be
> >>represented by bitstrings. On the other hand,
On 5/09/2017 2:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:58:57AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I have no problems with the assumption that all forms of data can be
represented by bitstrings. On the other hand, I do have some
difficulty accepting off-hand that all possible bitstring
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> You can insist with all the bad faith you have (and you have more than
> plenty),
Hey Quentin I have a great idea, go fuck yourself.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"E
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Terren Suydam
wrote:
>
> let's add a twist. In Helsinki, you're told that you'll be merely
> teleported to Barcelona, as before. However, unbeknownst to you, a
> duplicate of you will also be created in Paris. This creates a situation
> where depending on your
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 at 1:52 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> >
>> It seems that you have no problem with 1:1 duplication - you agree that
>> you survive, just as if you had travelled by plane.
>>
>
> Certainly. And if you put me on a pl
Dear Vinod,
On 05 Sep 2017, at 14:41, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL wrote:
Dear Vinod,
Thank you for your attempt to understand what I try to explain. Let
us indeed try to find where we
might disagree. I think we disagree simply on our assumptions. You
assume primary stuff.
I assume elementary nu
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Terren Suydam
> wrote:
>
> >
>> Right now I'm only concerned with the present, the ongoing flow of
>> experience. It doesn't sound like you have any issue with the idea that
>> someone who gets physically
On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not
replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine. Then we
use the math of self-reference to study what a digital machine can
prove and not prove about itself, and the 8 d
2017-09-05 18:14 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
> > > Of course they couldn't have figured out which one before the
>>> duplication, they couldn't figure out ANYTHING before the duplication
>>> because they didn't exist before the duplication!
>
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That it turns out the the H-man didn't see Moscow.
>
> We agree that the M-man see M, but the H-man was unable to predict that he
> would specifically feel to be the one in Washington.
>
Gibberish.
>
> That is even clearer in
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > Of course they couldn't have figured out which one before the
>> duplication, they couldn't figure out ANYTHING before the duplication
>> because they didn't exist before the duplication!
>
>
>
> This contradicts our agreement that th
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
> It seems that you have no problem with 1:1 duplication - you agree that
> you survive, just as if you had travelled by plane.
>
Certainly. And if you put me on a plane and I asked "Where is this plane
going, what one and only on
On 05 Sep 2017, at 03:14, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
I honestly don't feel that a TOE cannot be achieved unless
astronomers and physicists build and use better detection equipment
to observe the universe. I am convinced just by more prosaic
achievements, like dark mater and LIGO
On 05 Sep 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/09/2017 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2017, at 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Nobody can observe a metaphysical idea. You can observe matter,
and that is an evidence for matter, not for primary matter.
Primary means "not deducible"
On 05 Sep 2017, at 02:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett"
wrote:
On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical
reali
On 05 Sep 2017, at 00:25, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
My complaint is that it implicitly assumes more than "Yes doctor".
It assumes that computation exists in a Platonic realm independent
of the physical.
This not really needed. At s
On 04 Sep 2017, at 21:54, smitra wrote:
Reply to everyone.
What we experience is not the physical world but a simulation of it
by our brain. So, even if we assume that there exists a "primary"
physical world, we're not really living in one, we're at most living
in a World that's simulate
On 04 Sep 2017, at 21:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/4/2017 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2017, at 01:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Sep 201
On 5 September 2017 at 01:01, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote:
>
> On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, we can only speculate on a prima
On 04 Sep 2017, at 20:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/4/2017 12:05 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker"
wrote:
On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Sep
On 04 Sep 2017, at 21:09, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/4/2017 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your argument is 100% the same as saying "It seems to me that the
very possibility of computation depends on God".
If God or Matter plays a role in a computation, then you are not
taking the word "co
On 4 September 2017 at 19:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/4/2017 12:05 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Ma
On 05 Sep 2017, at 04:31, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> With mechanism, we have to listen to all the copies.What you
say is contradicted by all your copies.
Is that it? Is that all you've got to say? It was a long post,
what exactly was co
On 05 Sep 2017, at 04:26, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> They both say that the reconstitution has been enough good
for them, and both agree that among the W and the M experiences,
they live only one of them, and that they could not have figu
I toy with this idea every once in a while. That the observer moments are
generated by an observer, the observer is, for want of a better word, God, and
where did God emerge from? Well, the easiest way for me to imagine this, is to
invoke a Boltzmann Brain as The Observer. Therefore, rather the
26 matches
Mail list logo