Hi Bruno,
> > Can you give a particular example of a sentence p such that
> > B(Bp->p) is true?
> Take any proposition you can prove, for example the tautology
> (p -> p), or t.
(...)
> So once you have prove t, all the proposition of the shape
>
> -> t
>
> is easily deducible, by appl
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Cavalcanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Aug 13, 2005 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Modal Logic
To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Bruno,
On 8/13/05, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> > I am having a
Hi Bruno,
On 8/11/05, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am having a problem understanding this axiom:
> (...) Lob formula (B(Bp->p)->Bp), the main axiom of the modal logic
> of self-reference (G)
> can be interpreted as showing that some form of honest placebo effect
> works! But this i
On 7/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi all. I am posting a "want ad" for a QM formalist who is
> very conversant in the mathematical formalism. here is the proposal:
>
> over the last few years I have developed an ad hoc theory that
> I believe comes very close to the QM f
On 6/27/05, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for going on about this, but I'm still trying to understand: what
> possible difference could it make to anyone - you or your copy - if you
> suddenly disintegrated and were replaced a microsecond later with an exact
> copy?
To und
I can see an interesting new problem in this thread. Let me put it in a thought
experiment as the praxis in this list requires.
You are in the same torture room as before, but now the guy is going to
torture you to death. You have three options:
A: you flip a coin to decide whether you are going
> >I know that sounds somewhat solipsist in the end, but I can't believe
> >that merely scanning me can affect my future. And I would like to
> >be convinced otherwise, because I don't like solipsism.
>
> What do you mean, "the only way I could be convinced otherwise is by doing
> the test"? You a
On 6/23/05, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Cavalcanti writes:
> >I don't think it is that good an analogy for the following reason:
> >I don't believe that pushing a button to create a copy of me in
> >New York will increase my expectati
On 6/17/05, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You find yourself in a locked room with no windows, and no memory of how you
> got there.
> (...) a light (...) alternates between red and green every 10 minutes.
(...)
> Every 10 minutes, the system alternates between two states. One
>
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 11:46, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> Eric Cavalcanti writes:
> > Let's define a turing machine M with a set of internal states Q,
> > an initial state s, a binary alphabet G={0,1}. The transition
> > function is f: Q X G -> Q X G X {L,R} , i.e
I think some of the discussions about COMP and simulating people
could be better understood if we can first understand a (much)
simpler problem: a harmonic oscillator.
The relevance of this is that ultimately there might be no meaning
in saying that a string in Platonia or wherever represents anyt
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote:
> Hal Ruhl wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
> > evident [once you notice it].
> > At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
> > [once you notice it].
>
> T
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 10:13, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> To respond to comments on consistency.
>
> I see no reason why components of the system need to be internally
> consistent. And I have indicated that the All is not internally
> consistent. Generally speaking evolving Somethings are also not
> c
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 12:15, Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
> As an extra challenge, can you think of a way to
> find out if JA=YES in some of the outcomes? It
> would involve different questions, but I think it
> should be possible in principle.
I thought about that problem more, and I
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 22:51, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> As a Price, I give you the (known?) Smullyan McCarthy
As a Price, or a Prize? :)
> puzzle. You are in front of three Gods: the God of Knights, the
> God of Knaves, and the God of Knives. The God of Knight always
> tells the truth. The God of Kn
AAAghhh!!!
I didn't read it carefully again!!!
Yes, it is not even-money. In the infinite
players case, even though you are equally
likely to win or lose, you win money in the
long run.
I am going to sleep... :)
Eric.
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 17:52, Kory Heath wrote:
> At 12:20 AM 10/11/2004, N
creasing with the number of players.
>
> What's the limit when there are infinite players?
>
> Norman
> - Original Message -
> From: "Eric Cavalcanti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, Octo
> And here is another puzzle, which is not entirely
> unrelated with both the KK puzzles and the current probability
> discussion: I put three cards, two aces and a jack, on their
> face in a row. By using only one yes-no question and pointing
> one of the card, you must with certainty find one of
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >I always forget to reply-to-all in this list.
> >So below goes my reply which went only to Hal Finney.
> >
> >-Forwarded Message-
> >> From: Eric Cavalcanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > T
I always forget to reply-to-all in this list.
So below goes my reply which went only to Hal Finney.
-Forwarded Message-
> From: Eric Cavalcanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Observation selection effects
> Dat
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 10:42, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Eric Cavalcanti writes:
>
> QUOTE-
> And this is the case where this problem is most paradoxical.
> We are very likely to have one of the lanes more crowded than
> the other; most of the drivers reasoning would thus, by c
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 07:55, Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 16:56, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Hal Finney writes:
> >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou writes:
> > > >Here is another example which makes this point. You arrive before two
> > &
I have read some stuff on Nick Bostrom's page
(http://nickbostrom.com/) and while in general
I agree with his conclusions about
observation-selection effects, there is one
example which I am not sure I understand.
It is the one about cars in the next lane going
faster:
(http://plus.maths.org/iss
Hi there,
Well, it is a good try, but it has been proven wrong already indeed.
To see a better refutal, see Feynman's popular book 'QED'.
For instance, that theory seems even better once you realize that it
also acounts for the inverse-square law.
But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that object
Oops, I realize that it wasn't in 'QED' but in the 'Lectures' that I
read that...
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Cavalcanti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: Fw: Gravity Carrie
Dear colleagues,
this email is to draw your attention to a ban on scientific publications
for authors of countries for which the USA declared a trade embargo.
Under the terms of the trade embargo, a publisher of a journal that
accepts a scientific paper from an author residing in Libya, Iran, I
sness there?' . Would you "still" say "But we already know
> that there are no consciousness -- so what the question is really
> asking?".
> Well my remark adds nothing in the sense that Eric Cavalcanti
> succeeds apparently to pinpoint the contradiction in Pete's
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Pete Carlton wrote:
>
> >In any case, I grant that the blind man's experience would be quite
> >different from someone who's actually looking at the color red. This is
> >just because the functional states of someone
Pete, I hope you don't mind my replying to the list.
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> But even this goes way out in front of what we can possibly know. You
> >> say we have no idea what these feelings are like to experience--but
> >> why
> >> should w
Entering the discussion here...
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But even this goes way out in front of what we can possibly know. You
> say we have no idea what these feelings are like to experience--but why
> should we assume we even are entitled to as
- Original Message -
From: "David Barrett-Lennard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>0xf2f75022aa10b5ef6c69f2f59f34b03e26cb5bdb467eec82780
>> didn't exist in this universe (with a very high probability, it being a
>> 512 bit number, generated from physical system noise) before I've
>> generated it. N
Hi Matt,
- Original Message -
From: "Matt King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just my tuppenceworth...
>
> Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
>
> >I think this discussion might have already took place
> >here, but I would like to take you opinions on this.
>
I think this discussion might have already took place
here, but I would like to take you opinions on this.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
happen or be lost?
Take the a double-slit-like experiment. A particle can take
two paths, A and B. We can in principle detect which pa
I think this discussion might have already took place here,
but I will post this to take your opinions on the topic.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
happen or be lost?
Taking the double-slit experiment in mind, with paths A and B,
the first answer that comes to the mind i
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>When you said earlier that:
>>"In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
>>happen to constitute a system that has self-referential
>>qualities that we call consciousness."
>
>
>I would say I *
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Greetings;
> this reply has taken some time...
>
> > I don't quite agree with your point of view, and the reason is maybe
> > similar to our disagreement in my statement: "It is not useful to talk
> > about 1st person ex
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Eric Cavalcanti, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes:
> > In the case of non-destructive-copy experiment, the copy is
> > made in a distinct place/time from the original. They could as well be
Hi,
I disagreed with some points in your argumentation...
- Original Message -
From: "David Barrett-Lennard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm trying to define "identity"...
>
> Let's write x~y if SAS's x and y (possibly in different universes) have
> the same identity.
You did not yet 'defin
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Suppose I sit on this copy machine in New York, and the information of
the
> > position and velocities (within quantum uncertainty) of all particles in
> > my body is copied. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that th
Hi,
I found this post really thoughtful, but I didn't quite agree. Let's see if
I can argue on it:
> Doesn't this part:
> > In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
> > happen to constitute a system that has self-referential qualities that
> > we call consciousness. If
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of exactly
> >equal copies. Nevertheless, I am sure I will only experience being
> >one of them, so this is what I mean by ' me ' - the actual experiences
> >I will hav
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "David Kwinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I mean the absolutely exact same David Kwinter or Eric Cavalcanti as
> was the moment before.
I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of exactly
equal copies. Neverthele
> > Also, what about a weighted version of the ASSA? I believe other animals
are
> > conscious and thus would qualify as observers/observer-moments, which
would
> > suggest I am extraordinarily lucky to find myself as an observer-moment
of
> > what seems like the most intelligent species on the p
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
> > But in this case there is clearly
> > no 'soul' or anything other than the configuration of atoms
> > to describe what we call 'ourselves'. In any branching of
> > the multiverse
What do you mean by *entirely equal*?
- Original Message -
From: "David Kwinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10:47 AM, Eric Cava
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello,
>
> A few comments on your post.
>
> If I interpret correctly, you are basically distinguishing "dualistic"
> interpretations from a "materialistic" ones.
> When we talk of a materialistic viewpoint, what *are* we talki
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply to this:
> From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > You can "assume" anything you like!
> >
> > Seriously, we have had extensive and occasionally acrimonious debates
> > on this topic in the past, without much success or resolution. I think
> > that we have no
Hi,
My name is Eric Cavalcanti, and I am joining this list.
As was solicited in the website, I am sending this Joining post with details
of my background.
I am a physicist, recently received my MSc in atomic physics.
I have been participating in the Fabric of Reality list for some time, so I
48 matches
Mail list logo
