Re: Wishing a Joyful Christmas & Happy New Year

> On 19 Dec 2020, at 21:47, Anonymous Monk wrote: > > Greeting folks. Welcome > > First time reader, joiner, here and pleasantly surprised that such obviously > philosophical discussion can easily include a clearly biblical response, > discussion, and depth. > > For myself though,

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 13:05, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Sunday, December 27, 2020 at 7:14:09 PM UTC-6 Brent wrote: > She implied that this proof was antithetical to the MWI, but I don't see how. > > Brent > > > She says the proof is similar to Carroll and Sebens arXiv:1405.7907

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 02:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > She implied that this proof was antithetical to the MWI, but I don't see how. Does she? She said that it fits well with the MWI, but that she does not need that “metaphysical baggage” to get her proof. She is right,

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 27 Dec 2020, at 17:12, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > I read this and I have no quarrels with it. The only issue I might have is > that it is more limited than a full Born rule. The only observable she works > with is probability. This is then just a variant of Gleason's theorem. Sabine

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 26 Dec 2020, at 16:41, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Fact is there's no need to bring in pretentious big brains from Australia to > show that Born's rule makes no sense in the context of the MWI. For > simplicity, consider a spin experiment where the observer measures spin UP in > THIS world,

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 26 Dec 2020, at 16:39, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: > > Bruno writes: "It is a theorem. No universal machine can determine which > computations run it, .. " > > Do we need a 'constructor theory’? > The universal machine is enough, then you can enrich its cognitive

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 20:35, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:55 AM > wrote: > > > There are three possible ways out this problem of course. One is to say > > these string must be finite and thus the set of them enumerable. The other

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 14:23, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > >That the Born rule doesn't derive from the Schroedinger equation doesn't > >bother me. > > We don't need to

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 12:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 9:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 21:32, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 11:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:27 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 12:29, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 12:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 06:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 3:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > That the Born rule doesn't derive from the Schroedinger equation doesn't > bother me. > > It doesn't bother me,

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 05:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > That the Born rule doesn't derive from the Schroedinger equation doesn't > bother me. Gleason's theorem guarantees it's the only consistent probability > measure in the eigenstates of an observable. The question

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 25 Dec 2020, at 03:06, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > For "physical continuity" information as a stored coherent process, may be > provided by the study of cosmology in the interaction of photons and gravity. > It's a long shot, especially from the vantage point of our

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 24 Dec 2020, at 22:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 8:44 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 at 08:33, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 8:04 AM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 23 Dec 2020, at 03:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 10:58, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:45 AM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 23 Dec 2020, at 00:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:35 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:15, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 9:07 AM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:37 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> Am Mo, 21. Dez 2020, um 21:35, schrieb Bruce Kellett: >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:56 PM John Clark >&g

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 21:14, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > All the copies could be conscious or all could be zombies; none are > privileged. > > "In truth there is only one mind. Oneness it is the doctrine of the > Upanishads." As far as I remember

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 19:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/22/2020 12:35 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 18:21, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou >

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 7:35 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 18:21, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 07:58, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 08:51, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 8:47 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 08:35, Bruce Kellett

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 21 Dec 2020, at 12:55, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 1:38 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > MWI is incompatible with the Born Rule > > How do you figure that? Good question. For me it is an open problem to decide if the MWI does or not

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 19 Dec 2020, at 11:18, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-7 sce...@libero.it wrote: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068 > Randomness? What randomness? > > Klaas Landsman >

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > Science doesn't deal in proofs, only in evidence. And the reality it deals > with is that which can be tested...i.e. is not "underlying”. I sort of agree. To believe in an underlying reality, or in a fundamental

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 21 Dec 2020, at 17:25, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem are indications of an > irreducible randomness to measurement outcomes in QM. That is clear for me when you assume one and only one physical universe, or one measurement outcome. It is

Re: Trump is on drugs

> On 12 Oct 2020, at 12:15, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > I would say in general with a machine you can see the seems, bolts and rivets > while a biological system you don’t. In both case we see particles and fields obeying computable laws, when we look at a digital machine implemented in

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

Hi Telmo, I comment Bruce, and add some more. Feel free to try to explain what the machine’s theory of consciousness is missing, if you think something is missed (besides the infinity of theorem in this open branch of mathematical logic or machine theology). > On 22 Dec 2020, at 10:35, Telmo

Re: Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe where everything exists?)

> On 19 Dec 2020, at 00:59, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Friday, December 18, 2020 at 1:57:28 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote: > [Telmo Menezes] > > “Imagine the "universe" in terms of the set of all first-person experience > moments of all of its inhabitants. Is there a limit to novelty

Re: Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe where everything exists?)

ject: Re: Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe >> where everything exists?) >> >> On 12/16/2020 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> Am Do, 17. Dez 2020, um 03:08, schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: >> >> >>

Re: Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe where everything exists?)

On 12/16/2020 9:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> Am So, 13. Dez 2020, um 17:11, schrieb Bruno Marchal: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10 Dec 2020, at 16:14, Telmo Menezes >>>>> <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >

Re: Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe where everything exists?)

> On 16 Dec 2020, at 18:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > Am So, 13. Dez 2020, um 17:11, schrieb Bruno Marchal: >> >>> On 10 Dec 2020, at 16:14, Telmo Menezes >> <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote: >>> >>> Mindey

Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe where everything exists?)

> On 10 Dec 2020, at 16:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Mindey asked a very interesting question, and I've been thinking about it > while following the discussion. I don't have a good answer, but I might have > a good question. I propose another take: the discussion so far has been in > terms

Re: A Lamentation on Thanksgiving 2020

son other than keeping power. Trump suffers from having a very large “little ego”. Anyway, my feeling is that a second term of Trump could have destroyed democracy for real. Now, there is some hope…, but I still try to understand why some educated people can defend anyone not showing his taxes,

Re: If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists as a nazi.

> On 5 Dec 2020, at 11:09, PGC wrote: > > Yes, it is the season. > > "So if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus both exists and is a nazi." > > And if the sentence above were true, then Santa Claus would exist and be a > nazi. But it doesn't say "It is false that if this sentence is

Re: A Lamentation on Thanksgiving 2020

> On 9 Dec 2020, at 15:15, PGC wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 3:12:09 PM UTC+1 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 27 Nov 2020, at 16:32, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 7:00:54 PM

Re: A universe where everything exists?

> On 9 Dec 2020, at 20:31, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 8:01:30 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 27 Nov 2020, at 15:00, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> This is a part of what I said earlier. Think of this with Bayesian

Re: A Lamentation on Thanksgiving 2020

> On 28 Nov 2020, at 20:44, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Wow, if this is not a great compendium of nonsense! I can't vouch for the > publications, and the Researchgate is not itself a gatekeeping organization. > > I have utterly no idea what is meant by dark chemistry. Dark matter is only

Re: A Lamentation on Thanksgiving 2020

> On 27 Nov 2020, at 16:32, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 7:00:54 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote: > Socialism is merely a path or should be, and not a goal. Socialism was indeed > the primary method by the nazis for social control, for those not

Re: A universe where everything exists?

thod, at some point we have to be very clear about what is assumed, and what is not assumed and instead derived. With Mechanism, elementary arithmetic is all what is assumed, beside the consciousness invariance at the meta-level. Bruno > > LC > > On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 4:1

Re: A Lamentation on Thanksgiving 2020

> On 26 Nov 2020, at 01:23, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Dumb white trash America has spoken! > > I am going to say right off I have no strong cultural connection to > Protestantism. My religious background is Catholicism and Judaism, and I > chose the latter because it made at least a bit

Re: A universe where everything exists?

> On 26 Nov 2020, at 18:57, Mindey I. wrote: > > Curiously, I found the Everything List, because I wanted to to create a "A > Universe Where Everything Can Exist" ( https://mindey.com/world.pdf ), which > the Google search of 2007 returned me to my search query "How to create a > universe,

Re: The Conscious Turing Machine

Trying to detect (or understand) consciousness from the architecture, is like trying to explain alpha of deep blue by looking how a gate is working. The architecture might be contingent, and has nothing to do with an explanation which (assuming mechanism) is of an higher order, like an

Re: The Conscious Turing Machine

> On 25 Nov 2020, at 23:52, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > The Conscious Turing Machine > arXiv: > https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850

Re: The Conscious Turing Machine

> On 24 Nov 2020, at 20:17, Philip Thrift wrote: > > The Conscious Turing Machine > > video: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=152yq0SPIqk > > arXiv: > https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850 > > A Theoretical Computer Science Perspective on Consciousness > Manuel Blum [

Re: Be very afraid!

cs as a science is born from the doubt about materialism, which is taken for granted by many people today. Bruno > > On Friday, November 13, 2020 at 10:09:24 PM UTC+11 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 13 Oct 2020, at 20:59, John Clark > > wrote: >> >> The Holy Roller

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

> On 13 Nov 2020, at 22:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/13/2020 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 13 Oct 2020, at 02:23, spudboy...@aol.com <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com> >>> wrote: >>> >

Re: Be very afraid!

> On 13 Oct 2020, at 20:59, John Clark wrote: > > The Holy Roller who wants to be on the US Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, > today refused to say that Trump could not unilaterally delay the Nov. 3 > election. Instead she waffled and said: > > "I would need to hear arguments from the

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

ned here (and in most of my papers). Bruno > > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Mon, Oct 12, 2020 9:23 am > Subject: Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event > > >> On 8 Oc

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

ready be in a > shooting war? Thanks democrats. Not my idea of the 21st century, but my wee > voice doesn't count. One has to have lots of money to successfully bribe > politicians. $$ > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com &

Re: New Zealand votes to legalize euthanasia for terminally ill patients

> On 1 Nov 2020, at 19:32, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 09:50:16AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 30 Oct 2020, at 11:42, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> And for the last three weeks the 18.7 acres around the White House

Re: New Zealand votes to legalize euthanasia for terminally ill patients

> On 30 Oct 2020, at 11:42, John Clark wrote: > > And for the last three weeks the 18.7 acres around the White House has > reported more COVID-19 cases than the entire country of New Zealand, I guess > New Zealanders are just more civilized and competent than Americans. > > New Zealand

Re: Trump's massive corruption is now the new normal

Hi Philip, You seem to use “pagan” as a pejorative adjective. I use it usually in a meliorative way, for any religion or theology which does not mix state and religion. The neoplatonists are easily persecuted by those who institutionalised religion after having separate theology from science.

Re: Trump's massive corruption is now the new normal

> On 21 Oct 2020, at 14:49, John Clark wrote: > > Everybody remembers the mindless chants of "lock her up" lead by Trump > against his 2016 political opponent, and Trump still wants Hillary Clinton > jailed for the crime of challenging him, so it's no surprise he wants his > 2020 political

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

> On 20 Oct 2020, at 20:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/20/2020 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 20:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegr

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

> On 20 Oct 2020, at 20:26, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/20/2020 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

> On 18 Oct 2020, at 19:08, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > >> On 15 Oct 2020, at 04:38, Jason Resch > <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I just

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/15/2020 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> You should have read Vic

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 20:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > You should have read Vic Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning". Vic points > out how many examples of fine tuning are mis-conceived...including Hoyle's > prediction of an excited state of carbon. Vic also points

Re: Stenger on Initial Low Entropy:

Hi Benjamin, Hi Lawrence, > On 17 Oct 2020, at 14:04, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Consciousness is those annoying periods between sleep. Lol (I first misinterpret it!) I would say that the *notion* of consciousness is the “grain of dust” which makes physicalism and the belief in some

Re: Penrose - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

> On 17 Oct 2020, at 00:21, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 12:58:43 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > " Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?" is the same as " Is Programming > Invented or Discovered?" > > > Arche-programming >

Re: Penrose - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 06:20, Alan Grayson wrote: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvS2K06dg4 Not much time to look at the video, but from his book, despite its notorious misunderstanding of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose seems quite reasonable on mathematical realism. I met

Re: Trump's new super spreader event

> On 14 Oct 2020, at 23:22, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 10/14/2020 3:27 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:10 PM > wrote: >> >> > the democrat riots, arson, looting, violent protests. shootings, etc.

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 04:38, Jason Resch wrote: > > I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning, and how the > evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete reality. I thought > others on this list might appreciate it: >

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

rule of laws, the left seems to me far more a reasonable option than a psychopath surrounded by those “cronies capitalists”, with the help of foreigners dictators. For them there is no humanity, nor even truth: just business based on lies and deception. Bruno > > > --

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

> On 8 Oct 2020, at 19:43, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > Well, well see If he wins again? There is a sort of class warfare going on, > either for purely financial advantage, or seemingly, a hunger for power. But > even The Bern had billionaire Pierre Omidyar funding him. > >

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

> On 8 Oct 2020, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 4:18:55 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 7 Oct 2020, at 02:12, John Clark > > wrote: >> >> I wrote a post llong long ago, nearly 30 minutes, that is now obsolete

Re: The Invention of Philosophy

> On 7 Oct 2020, at 12:30, Philip Thrift wrote: > > I'm in agreement with the certain Wittgensteinian brand that sees the only > thing philosophy is good for is just to "clarify" the word messes other > subjects make. > > > Philosophy as an Activity of Clarification > > Wittgenstein

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

> On 7 Oct 2020, at 02:12, John Clark wrote: > > I wrote a post llong long ago, nearly 30 minutes, that is now obsolete > because you now must add Trump's very close aide Steven Miller to the list of > people who work in the White House that have become infected with COVID-19. > Donald Trump

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

> On 7 Oct 2020, at 00:23, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > Shall I use this wee forum to present evidence of Black Racism, or that > Blacks can be hateful and act upon racially charged emotions as well as > Whites? There is a body count associated with this, and its not just

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

> On 4 Oct 2020, at 22:10, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 3:59:13 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 2:37:22 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com <> wrote: > These were, if memory serves, purchased by the Chinese in the US (they seem > to have

Re: The Invention of Philosophy

> On 7 Oct 2020, at 01:18, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > Philosophy really means love of sophistry, philos sophist. Socrates objected > terribly to the notion he was a sophist. His main rival was Gorgias, a > sophist. Philosophy is more “philo Sophia”: the love of Sophia (wiseness). It is

Re: The Invention of Philosophy

> On 6 Oct 2020, at 22:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > The Invention of Philosophy A very good on; …so typical vis-à-vis Pythagorus and what is called “objective idealism”. It reminds me also the work of Emil Post,

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

> On 5 Oct 2020, at 21:13, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 1:55:20 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think the killer application for a quantum computer will be simulating > quantum systems. > > John K Clark > > > Why shouldn't simulations of quantum

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

> On 4 Oct 2020, at 20:56, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > pdf: > https://www.bakerlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Lajoie-coLOCKR2020.pdf Thanks. This confirms somehow what I said. Impressive work. No doubt about that. Bruno > > > via > Baker Lab, Institute for Protein Design >

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

> On 5 Oct 2020, at 01:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/4/2020 12:52 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> Quantum computers, or processors, will make more inroads into things. They >> have a possible big role in understanding quantum black holes and quantum >>

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

> On 4 Oct 2020, at 14:07, John Clark wrote: > > In the September 25 2020 issue of the journal Science researchers report on > the invention of a sequence of switches made entirely of protein that can > perform AND OR and NOT Boolean logical operations, and thus is Turing > Complete, they

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

wrong”, or “sorry”, not even “oops”. Then, nobody should ever vote for someone who refuse to show its taxes. All reason to such a refusal can only be based on hiding wrongdoings, and be it done by Democrats or Republicans or whatever, it is better to put someone honest at the top. Bruno

Re: Death With Dignity

> On 30 Sep 2020, at 14:37, John Clark wrote: > > In a civilized place like Washington State it is legal for a terminally ill > person to end their life If they decide to do so. An ALCOR member decided to > do just that and employees of that organization we're on hand when he died to > make

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

> On 27 Sep 2020, at 00:05, John Clark wrote: > > The new US supreme court nominee will be Amy Coney Barrett, and she is just > the sort of person you would expect, a religious crockpot. She is a member of > an extreme right wing Catholic cult called "The People of Praise"; they speak > in

Re: Topos of Quantum Gravity

g language: > > Catlab.jl - https://github.com/AlgebraicJulia/Catlab.jl > > @philipthrift > On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 4:05:43 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 22 Sep 2020, at 19:49, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> I downloaded Doering’s paper. In s

Re: Topos of Quantum Gravity

> On 22 Sep 2020, at 19:49, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > I downloaded Doering’s paper. In scanning this I see a mention of Chris > Isham, who started this idea of Topos as a category system of physics. > Which is nice. Isham is also quite open for the “many-world”. > I think in a way

Re: Topos of Quantum Gravity

> On 21 Sep 2020, at 22:48, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 12:49:22 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 9/21/2020 4:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> Some Remarks on the Logic of Quantum Gravity >> Andreas Doering >> >>

Re: Topos of Quantum Gravity

> On 21 Sep 2020, at 13:44, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Some Remarks on the Logic of Quantum Gravity > Andreas Doering > > https://www.academia.edu/5456772/Some_Remarks_on_the_Logic_of_Quantum_Gravity > > We discuss some conceptual issues that any approach to quantum gravity has to >

Re: Could a face mask be a primitive form of vaccine?

I cannot judged this, but it clearly makes some sense. I am actually teaching, with mask, and with masked students. The main problem is that it is harder for the students to guess when I am joking and when I am not! Putting a mask is not funny, but those who does not put it in the name of

Re: Another challenge for the conventionalists: the monster group

> On 15 Sep 2020, at 20:16, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/15/2020 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 14 Sep 2020, at 19:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >&g

Re: Another challenge for the conventionalists: the monster group

finish the work, in some futures. Bruno > > LC > > On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 12:33:02 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 9/14/2020 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> So if the axioms are conventions and the rules of inference are > >&g

Re: Another challenge for the conventionalists: the monster group

> On 14 Sep 2020, at 19:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/14/2020 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> So if the axioms are conventions and the rules of inference are >>> conventions, then conventionalism is true. >> >

Re: Another challenge for the conventionalists: the monster group

exemplar now? … Bruno > On 14 Sep 2020, at 13:07, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 4:27:48 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 14 Sep 2020, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >>

Re: Another challenge for the conventionalists: the monster group

> On 14 Sep 2020, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2020 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Some have defended conventionalism in mathematics. I shown that hard to >> sustain in recursion/compu

Another challenge for the conventionalists: the monster group

Hello, Some have defended conventionalism in mathematics. I shown that hard to sustain in recursion/computability theory, and thus arithmetic. Here something which shows that it is hard to maintain conventionalism in the study of finite symmetries. Groups (mainly set of symmetries) can be

Underground QC

Hello, Background radiation and quasi-particles decohere superconducting quantum computing device, suggesting to make them working underground! https://news.mit.edu/2020/cosmic-rays-limit-quantum-computing-0826?fbclid=IwAR0q7rAwj-FRRm3wzDW9HSOYyeH8IXQzOA5RtzTu_0q4o-oJDQ-xew_LLqo

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 13 Sep 2020, at 01:21, PGC wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2020, at 16:29, PGC > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11:38:32 AM UTC+2, Bru

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> >>>I gave you the answer for year, but it asks for distinguishing the 1p and >> >>>the 3p > >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:11 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> When self duplication becomes commonplace I think the English language > >> will need to change

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:03, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: >  > >> when something that would now take paragraphs to explain becomes > >> intuitively obvious to everybody on a gut level people will say things in >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 21:41, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > > When self duplication becomes commonplace I don't think the word "you" will > > exist anymore. > > > Why not? It

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 20:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/10/2020 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> My own feeling is like Nozick's, which is best expressed by the old >>> American statement: "Clo

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 15:07, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 5:36 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >>> It has a perfectly clear referent, > > >> If it were perfectly clear then why doesn't Bruno Marchal use

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 14:16, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke up in > > a little room. > > I don't think so. When self duplication becomes

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

; From: John Clark > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2020 7:01 am > Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:40 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > It has a perfectly clear referent, &

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >