, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
just photons
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do
a present. For
this, the definition of a present (what things exist having the same
coordinate times) differs in different reference frames.
Jason
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote
sharing a present. For
this, the definition of a present (what things exist having the same
coordinate times) differs in different reference frames.
Jason
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish
li
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events
Okay.
Just as a tip, which I think will make things a little easier for others
to follow a conversation, is
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I would add a (*) on observer role. In MWI the observer plays no
special function in the evolution of the wave function. This is not the
case
things exist having the
same
coordinate times) differs in different reference frames.
Jason
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what
was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without
a defined
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
consistent with SR.
Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an
answer to this problem which exists in SR.
Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima
Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!
If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no
what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...
Jason
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html
I guess they don't believe in the collapse either. :-)
Jason
--
You received this message because you
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present
moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse
together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times.
If
!
If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no
what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...
Jason
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
I
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of
only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing
what when?
I calculate it from the parameters of the experiment
mean by this..
Apologies if I'm teaching my gradnmother to suck eggs.
No worries. Let me know if my example or explanation still does not make
sense. :-)
Jason
On 3 January 2014 15:25, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations
about it, not so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the
problems it claims
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 10:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
What do you think about the idea that the whole course of the universe
was set at that (near) singularity at the beginning of the universe?
What do you mean by universe
:
On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space
traveller is what causes the twin paradox.
I would say
:
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space
traveller is what causes the twin paradox.
I would say it is not so much the acceleration
:
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space
traveller is what causes the twin paradox.
I would say it is not so much the acceleration
Quintin, you beat me to it, I had http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#local on
my clip board when I saw your message appear. :-)
Jason
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM,
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real
UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason,
You may be missing the fact
.
I'm not sure what you mean by this..
Apologies if I'm teaching my gradnmother to suck eggs.
No worries. Let me know if my example or explanation still does not
make sense. :-)
Jason
On 3 January 2014 15:25, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar
the diagram.
I'm not sure what you mean by this..
Apologies if I'm teaching my gradnmother to suck eggs.
No worries. Let me know if my example or explanation still does not
make sense. :-)
Jason
On 3 January 2014 15:25, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What is moving if it's not time?
Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next.
Jason,
I agree completely with all your other replied to Edgar, but I
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/4/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 January 2014 15:01, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What is moving if it's not time?
Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next.
Jason,
I agree completely with all
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You don't really have to say it's an illusion. It's a description
of the world and the fact that you
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 17:10, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2014 16:29, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014
John,
This may be a case of a little knowledge being dangerous. Bell's theorem
holds only under a certain set of assumptions, assumptions which are not
made in Everett's theory. If you won't review the materials Quentin, Bruno,
and others have sent you then there is no hope for you.
Jason
On
Edgar,
It might help if we all used consistent language for present, event,
simultaneous, etc. I recommend we use the definitions which Einstein
works out (starting on page 2 of his paper):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
It would avoid a lot of confusion I think,
On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
I'll stick with my definitions, which are quite clear and obvious.
Okay then please define for us:
Event
Present
Simultaneous
Clock time
P-time
Proper time
Coordinate time
Space time
If we don't have common
On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
No it's not an observation that the two twins are together at
particular spacetime coordinates because the spacetime t
coordinates are different.
Their proper times are different, but not their coordinate times.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none.
Any clock in my rest frame measures my coordinate time.
It's beginning to sound just like another name for Present time.
What's the difference?
In
John,
Read Bell's paper and you will see it is rife with QM language:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf He also always uses the
value or the result when talking about a measurement, which implicitly
references the notion of collapse.
With the example advocated by Bohm and
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Read Bell's paper and you will see it is rife with QM language:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf
I never said Bell didn't know
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
he assumed this time asymmetry was fundamental, not a mere statistical
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
No comment on the part of my e-mail that contradicts what you have been
arguing?
Are you referring to:
He [Bell] also always uses the value
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/8/2014 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something
real about the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism
that does not
Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be
small and finite.
The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then
you also get an infinite number of computers built by aliens in
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the
UDA, as it may betray a misunderstanding on my part. But if that's
not the case, then it seems to me that I could never communicate
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists, so
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam
terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the
UDA, as it may betray a misunderstanding on my part. But if that's
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*, which
from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the 1p delay
invariance.
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual
reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Edgar,
How do you know reality is really as small and limited as you think it
Edgar,
The most well known is the arxiv. It is run out of cornell
university. Their website is arxiv.org
Jason
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Telmo,
Thanks for the explanation, though it doesn't seem very applicable
to actual reality...
I would
You would be surprised how similar what you say below is to the
conclusions of the UDA.
Jason
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a
logical information space. There are no metrics,
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an
unreachable non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is
clearly understood it is obvious that nothing actual can be
On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You'd have a snowball's chance in hell in publishing a paper there
withOUT academic affiliation...
I've published there without any academic affiliation.
Jason
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:33:42
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind'
or simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try
again. Even
Tegmark's new book just arrived in my mail. I'll let everyone know what my
thoughts on it are when I finish.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered
a 'formal theory'.
A first (and great) step would be just to explain in clear normal language
(no jargon) what you assume, and what you
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite.
You believe there is only one physical universe, right? What is your
justification for this? How do you know there wasn't another big bang
Edgard,
You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what you
are assuming at the start. So what are those minimal assumptions you took
as true at the start which led to your other deductions?
Thanks,
Jason
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 9:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'd have a snowball's chance in hell in publishing a paper there
withOUT academic affiliation...
Edgar
Yeah, arXiv was once pretty open but it got so many papers
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic
axioms and concepts of the theory.
Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which
are the ones derived from
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one
physical universe.
It is conceivable there is more than one
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Edgar,
1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious?
2. Do you believe replacing
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there
in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything
happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century deserves to be shot.
I am not sure whether or not the word is defined
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI
about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous
(FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing excerpt that starts at the bottom of
page 30:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
particle properties conform to what a computer's random number generator
outputs, and then the digits of Pi, and then the binary expansion of the
square root of 2, all variously as the experimenters change the knobs as to
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what is
the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories?
Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where Everything
exists and
Liz,
I came across that page of yours a few months ago through random searching.
(I forgot what I was searching for), but only later did I realize it was
your blog!
Out of curiosity, do you recall what the 2 other responses were to your
poll?
Jason
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:04 PM, LizR
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the sense that a
computer can in theory do everything your brain can do is almost certainly
correct. It is not that the brain is like a computer, but rather, that a
Colin, Liz,
What do you find wrong with what Dennett said?
Jason
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
J yeah... he does that he’s so wrong and yet I like him a lot.
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25377
*Neil Gershenfeld* http://www.edge.org/memberbio/neil_gershenfeld
*Physicist, Director, MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms; Author, FAB*
Totally agree: He blames
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a
moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified
block time is false.
That things move does not disprove block time.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:54 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I will have to agree with LizR here. SR in fact makes the notion of a
present moment a nonsensical concept, as SR shows how there does not exist,
nay cannot
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It just
so happens that light, having no velocity in time, always travels at the
speed of time in all observers' frames thorough SPACE. All its
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree with you that science, when you really start getting into
the implications of things like QM (and relativity for that matter),
provides some rather unsettling (and yet very exciting!)
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 6:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI
about how to make an AI
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
particle properties conform to what a computer's random number generator
outputs, and then the digits
On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the
Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk is clearly misleading, but the
sense
On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 03:46, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at
MIRI about how to make an AI
experiments like inverted qualia. They have
classes on consciousness and mailing list discussions about zombies.
Yet all this, is supposed to be a product of things that never once
were conscious!
That's why I find them so doubtful.
Jason
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch
Do you have an explanation for why reality time computes fewer moments
for someone accelerating than someone at rest?
Jason
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every
INDIVIDUAL observer has
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
I see a flaw in your argument.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal
present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read
it? It is impossible to define a clock on an
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his 4 levels of the multiverse, I
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree with you that science, when you really start getting
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 6:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
Let's try to be a bit more formal. Interleaving.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 8:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Whether or not it has an I model it is making untrue claims which I
consider suffi ent to call lying.
You call it lying whenever someone is mistaken??
According to the same
..
If it was then it would be the canonical conjugate of energy.
How is time different from space in your view?
Jason
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote
and measure of that
fundamental Becoming in a relatively local way.
Problem solved!
I still don't see what the problem is!
Jason
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:34, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant that if the physics of the brain is computable it follows as a
straighforward deduction that it would *at least* be possible to make
a philosophical
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you don't use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical
instantiation as calculated
501 - 600 of 2375 matches
Mail list logo
