Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 08 Sep 2017, at 21:15, John Clark wrote: I wrote the following a few days ago but didn't send it because I intended to say more, but other things came up that seemed more important so this will just have to do. I hope you are fine. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 9/9/2017 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness requires a world to

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness requires a world to be conscious of! Why? That seems magical

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:48:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is right, but fortunately, a computation, when executed, is not a pile of states, is more like a precisely structured set of states. We still cannot found the observer there,

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/09/2017 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness requires a

Fwd: Is math real?

On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the > fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who