en numbers. All we see emerges from this: including
conscious experience and appearances of physical realities.
Jason
On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as
seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> He did answer and did it correctly,
> I somehow missed that post. What number di
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of
something, doing this processing, this work?
In the
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:50, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body
problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of
"other minds".
Actually, I have wondered about this. How do all these
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:51, LizR wrote:
The Tao that can be named...
... is NOT the Tao.
Indeed. this is common with most notion of (unique) God, despite most
institutionalized religion fall in the trap.
The comp "religion" has this more in common with taoism. On the divine
truth, the wi
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some simple nume
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:20, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one
might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a
num
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal
present moment across so here's another approach with a thought
experiment
To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they
share the same comm
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Decoherence is a well verifie
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:56, Jason Resch wrote:
Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced /
instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role.
Yes. It has to be like that. Stopping programs should contribute to 0,
in the "measure conflict".
So we are (m
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:03, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You state "The UD is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind."
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement
I've heard here today in all manner of respect
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:04, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch wrote:
The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the
program that is identical to your mind.
To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences
etc are a form of computation
On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:29, LizR wrote:
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as
UD* - I made the same mistake!)
Good :)
will eventually contain your mind.
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence
of states, with the right probabi
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or
alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
Then there is a collapse of the wave. I thought you disagree w
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to "Man is the measure
of all things".
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the Integers, all else is the invention of man.
"man is a measure of all things" is a quot
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:41, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason
(apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first
instruction of the first programme, then the first instruction of
the s
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line " For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms)" is buggy.
It assumes that the space of "programs that do not halt" is
acce
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
"The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and
10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ..."
Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree!
No logicians at all would ever disagree on this. The
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:52, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line " For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms)" is buggy.
It assu
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi Jason,
"Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus
mathematical truth captures the facts concerni
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers.
(Consider OTP encryptions).
In which language?
A program fortran will be distinguished by the grammar of Fortran.
In some language all numbers will be program.
Then , for a
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...
Also know today as "object oriented" languages. c++ win against
smaltalk, which won against the Actor model, but the idea is the same,
basically. It is efficacious, but the mat
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could
contain a source of genuine randomness, in principle.
I don't think the UD does, however.
The UD emulates all quantum computer and many sort of non
deterministic processes, including all r
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is "random noise" is necessary for the computations.
Turing machines require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise
oracles is cheating!
But it
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not
compute it in real time which is what reality actually does which is
my point.
"In real time" ?! In comp (and many TOEs) time is
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is "random noise" is necessary for the computations.
Turing machines require exact pre-specifiability. Add
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi Jason,
"It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers
to anything that is true or n
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR,
This is fun! :-) We must remember that we are defining People as
intersections of infinitely many computations. Right?
This is a very loose way to talk. Computations are not sets, so
"intersection of computations" is very ill
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:32, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:03, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of "reality" that you are
using here.
I quite like "whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."
I quite like too.
Bruno
--
You re
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
An observer can only experience a "reality" that is not
contradictory to its existence.
Tell this to the dictators.
Usually a reality guarantied some local consistency by definition of a
reality (modeled by the notion of models in logic).
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:26, meekerdb wrote:
He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the
UD exist via arithmetical realism as an abstract, immaterial
computation.
What does a physicist? It looks outside, and seem to be believe in a
special unique universal number, the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is
CORRECT! THe question then becomes: What is "time"?
It's a computed partial ordering relation between events.
The 1p time look
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- "He proposes to
dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via
arithmetical realism as an abstract, immateri
On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
"humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are
machines,"
Who wrote this?
*any* ideally correct machines is unable to recognize the fact that
they are machines.
Bruno
I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"
wrote:
Jason,
Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains
how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that
randomness is the lack of any governing deter
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi Jason,
"Any program, and whether or not it ever terminate
the derivation that
physics is a branch of arithmetic.
What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR,
or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.
Bruno
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrot
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line " For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instru
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi Jason,
"Any program, and whether or not
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is "random
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:10, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote
>> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth
right now?
Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
> I answered this two times already. T
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Br
On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.
?
That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.
Decoherence falsifies many worlds.
Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/
environment. It vindicat
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on
sequence of states, with the right probabilities, and for this you
need the complete run of the UD, because your next "moment" is
d
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to "Man is the measure
of all things".
What is his claim? I am not familiar with i
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want
generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm
generating all
ime divine experiences, but we are divine beings
having from time to time human experiences.
Bruno
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience
(or wha
On 28 Dec 2013, at 23:15, John Mikes wrote:
List:
Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for "R A N D O M"? (my non-
Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing
the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls
it "exbeliebig" = kind of: whatever I like)
My position
On 29 Dec 2013, at 00:28, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
"indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this
new type of randomness (discovered by Bruno)."
I don't think Bruno claims to have discovered the notion that there
can be first-person randomness even in a
On 29 Dec 2013, at 02:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the
computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense.
Computations are not physical. I agree. They are arithmetical notion.
But I can't understand wha
On 29 Dec 2013, at 11:37, LizR wrote:
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic
process. That's the meaning.
I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a
deterministic process?
Well,
f into never never
land...
What are your assumptions, and what is your equation or theorem?
Bruno
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.
?
That is my poi
On 29 Dec 2013, at 15:19, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was
supposed to be a scientific forum!
I guess *you* take seriously some theory of soul, to be so sure that
it does not exist, or could not have any sense.
"soul" is often
On 29 Dec 2013, at 17:14, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> I use Platonism, where God == Truth.
So God is "my dog just took a dump".
Oh! I hope your dog is OK.
> "God" is not that much a bad name.
It is a VERY bad
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results
of random choices.
If reality computes, then reality is a computer/universal-number. If
reality is physical reality, then this is
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you
are not here. However it is quite clear that you absolutely must be
doing something in the exact same present moment that I write t
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> I use Platonism, where God == Truth.
I know what "truth" means as an attribute of a sentence. But I
don't know what "Tr
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:05, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen
wrote
>> Are faster-than-light influences involved?
> No.
That means you think things are local.
>> 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is
alive or dead?
>> The cat is
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:29, LizR wrote:
Not quite, violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by
time symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications).
+ very special initial boundary conditions, which leads to a selection
principle in the MW. It is a bit like in Bohm, e
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR wrote:
> violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by time
symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications).
I have no idea what that private communication is, but I do know
that time
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds,
On 29 Dec 2013, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I
On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, D
On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28
On 30 Dec 2013, at 00:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Richard,
It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and
physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never
claimed to be a genius though.
:-)
Good for you. But you have often the tone of a "truth knower", w
On 30 Dec 2013, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, D
On 30 Dec 2013, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred
religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to
burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're
just theories!
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
"humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are
machines,"
Who wrote this?
*any* ideally correc
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:33, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Far from it, really;-) I assure you, I wish you no burning at any
stakes, whether literal or figurative. You are perfectly entitled to
be as incorrect as you wish, especially in an area as solidly
established as relativistic physics.
It'
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred
religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to
burned
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
computations compute di
Dear John,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 03:11, John Mikes wrote:
We 'use' practical conclusions - yet should not draw final and
universal ones on a totality we don't know. Call it Scientific
humility.
I partially agree/disagree here.
We cannot draw "final conclusion".
I do agree with this, as we ne
On 30 Dec 2013, at 03:59, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Everett's idea is more properly a theory. It explains the phenomenon
of collapse without supposing it is the other ideas of QM that try
to inte
, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got
On 30 Dec 2013, at 06:28, Jason Resch wrote:
In the space of all possible movies, the ones that are watchable or
meaningful to human viewers would all be highly compressible. The
ones that are random snow, despite containing more information,
would not make interesting movies. So maybe th
On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:25, LizR wrote:
I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD "runs" inside
arithmetic
Don't push me too much as I really want to explain this to you :)
It is not completely obvious, especially if we want be 100% rigorous.
There are not so much textbook whi
On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That is the only way to make progress. Propose theories, and
falsify them. Ockham says between theories tha
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got
n Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of
random choices.
If reality computes, then reality is a computer/univers
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because
you are not here. However it is quite clear
Edgar,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:45, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 22:40, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Give me a link to the FOAR list and I'll check it out... I can't
find it on Google groups
http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
it stands for "Fabric of Alternative Reality" - (the titl
On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds
of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the
computations, and the computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in t
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
important and separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the exte
On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
re.
The "realm of reality" is what we bet on, and search, not what we
believe already (except for the non justifiable consciousness).
Bruno
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just
marking the #s of your par-s into my short remarks.
#1
As long as we don't "know" ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff
we cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality',
An (ideal, so
On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is
(presumably) quantum. But notice the limitation of quantum
computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to
specify its state
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
> If an influence can go backward in time as well as forward then it
can effectively have FTL influence,
We already know for a fact that faster than light influences exist,
and this has nothin
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch
wrote:
>> That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know
for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from
experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and th
, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is
(presumably) quantum. But notice the limitati
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is
the
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can
avoid a lot of
On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly
does "fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be "something
fundamental"?
Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as "very important".
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence "
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because
instants ar
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one
we happen to exist in. I don't see th
1 - 100 of 16527 matches
Mail list logo
