On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:54:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/5/2018 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> "How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at the
> universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, t*he
> mathematics we would need
To go into further detail, creatures who perceived time that way would not be
able to maintain a sense of personal continuity or selfhood for very long,
since they have many future “selves” and past “selves”. So instead, they prefer
to think of their future and past “selves” as other people
Ah, yes, multiple histories. Given only what we know now about the universe
(and not what we “remember from before”, since our memories are actually just
patterns encoded in our brain at the present moment), what’s to stop us from
thinking that entropy was higher in the past and things just
On 12/5/2018 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
"How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at
the universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, t*he
mathematics we would need would have no axioms at all* It is only
the way we look at the universe that
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:42:51 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:52 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 11:42:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:57:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:46:08 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:01 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:28:39 PM UTC-6,
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:01 PM wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:28:39 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 3:45:32 PM
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:52 PM wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 11:42:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:57:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:36 AM wrote:
>>>
*Thanks, but I'm looking for a solution within
"How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at the
universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, t*he
mathematics we would need would have no axioms at all* It is only the
way we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure."
Chaos
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:29:44 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:48, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On the truth of computationalism, I mean to express emphatically that
>> *computationalism
>> is indeed false*, and it should be replaced by what I call
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-6, Mark Buda wrote:
>
> Philip Thrift > writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:50:22 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> >
> > On 12/4/2018 11:50 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 4:19:12 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:37:13 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2 Dec 2018, at 21:25, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:02:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:37:13 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 21:25, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:02:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/2018 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 19:22, Brent
Philip Thrift writes:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:50:22 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/4/2018 11:50 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1:46:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/4/2018 12:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> Can you give an example of "truth in
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:28:39 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 3:45:32 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5,
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 11:42:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:57:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:36 AM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *Thanks, but I'm looking for a solution within the context of
>>> interference and
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:57:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:36 AM > wrote:
>
>>
>> *Thanks, but I'm looking for a solution within the context of
>> interference and coherence, without introducing your theory of
>> consciousness. Mainstream thinking today is that
> On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:48, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:37:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 11:39, Philip Thrift >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:25:37 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2018,
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 1:55:22 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:08 PM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>
>>
>>> As has been pointed out, path integrals are a calculational tool, not an
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh,* that* again. It's like Groundhog Day (the movie).
19 matches
Mail list logo
