Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:30 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​>>​ >>> I'll be damned if I understand how all the Diophantine equations in the >>> world put together can store one bit of information, much less a unlimited >>> amount, you certainly

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:11 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​>>​ >>> You could argue that all modern science has done is prove the vacuum is >>> not nothing and although Leibniz was wrong about that the question remains >>> valid, but I would say

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:39:20AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > His retort was that > > integers weren't stuff - but I think that is somewhat of a lost in > > translation moment. The French word etouffe > > Etoffe. > > > > > basically means material, > > and in English stuff used to mean th

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 12:01:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> *> My tendency is to say that wormholes do not exist.* > > > It seems to me if wormholes existed we should expect to see as ma

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On 6/27/2018 2:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Which is certainly shorter than providing a degree 4 universal Diophantine equation, like below (I can’t resist): (unknowns range on the non negative integers (= 0 included) 31 unknowns: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P,

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>>​ >> The Casimir effect has demonstrated that the vacuum between 2 conductive >> planes that are very very close to each other contains negative energy >> density. > > > * ​>​Not exactly. There is just less positive energy density than outs

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

Listening in on the direct signals -- e.g. the gravity waves themselves -- that are produced in these extreme merger events is probably our best window into probing into what is actually occuring to the dynamically interacting forces at these energy scales. No atom smasher we could build can mat

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

On 6/27/2018 10:01 AM, John Clark wrote: />There are problems with these types of solutions. The biggest is they requires a source term that has negative energy/ The Casimir effect has demonstrated that the vacuum between 2 conductive planes that are very very close to each other con

Re: Primary matter

On 6/27/2018 1:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 27 June 2018 at 03:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to exp

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: *​>​1. Premise: No thing (nothing) exists.* > *2. By "1" it follows that "0 things exist" is true. * > ​If ​ ​"​ "0 things exist" is true ​"​ then "0 things exits" exists; but if its true then it can't exist exist. > ​> ​ > *Further it also

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > *> My tendency is to say that wormholes do not exist.* It seems to me if wormholes existed we should expect to see as many White Holes as Black Holes and they should be easier to detect than Black Hole

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 26 Jun 2018, at 02:54, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > On 6/24/2018 6:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:30 PM, John Clark > > wrote: >> On Thu,

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 02:54, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal >

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 02:54, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal >

Re: Primary matter

On 27 June 2018 at 03:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> I don't think that's the case. C seems to me to be capable to explaining >>> anything

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 24 Jun 2018, at 11:35, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 04:30:54PM -0400, John Clark wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> ​>* ​* >>> *The only thing I am asking is:* >>> *1) Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.* >>> *2) ??? -> Physics ->

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 23 Jun 2018, at 17:47, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​A physical computation is required for a physical observer to get a > result, but that remains true when the physical computation + the observer > are t

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

> On 26 Jun 2018, at 02:37, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:56:46AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> I'm not using magic. I'm asking for help. Does anyone else understand how >> physics is "explained by the inability of the universal machine to see the >> equivalence b

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 19:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2018 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Do our minds impose a preferred basis? >> >> No. But our material brain does, and it needs to do that to become a >> classical machine, or to behave classically in some branch of the wave.

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:56, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2018 4:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > But then you recognize that the physical world is a necessary component > and must exist to make computationalism meaningful. But that is exactly what happen. The physical

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:49, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2018 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 24 Jun 2018, at 21:30, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/24/2018 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 21 Jun 2018, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > O

Re: Is the "bubble multi-verse" and "qm many-worlds" the same thing?

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:47, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2018 4:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 24 Jun 2018, at 21:26, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/24/2018 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 21 Jun 2018, at 22:12, Brent M

Re: Radioactive Decay States

> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >