unsubscribe
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
I am sorry but I have to ask: why would minds be quantum
mechanical but bat minds be classical in your suspicions?
I am not sure I am being batocentric here but I can anticipate
a lot of bats waving their wings in disagreament...
-Joao
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Yes. I strongly
, is quantum mechanical and not classical
in its nature. My ideas follow the implications of Hitoshi Kitada's theory
of Local Time.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Joao Leao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
cents of wisdom so don't count on my answering
this one
Cordially,
-Joao Leao
P.S. - Happy New Year Everybody on Everything...
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Also, any quantum computer or physical system can be simulated by a
classical computer.
[SPK]
Bruno has
ideas concerning the possibility of using Quantum
Gravity as a basis for understanding the psychology of mathematical
invention are perhaps worth a second look now that we are learning a
good deal more about quantum information in Black Holes etc...
-Joao Leao
Ben Goertzel wrote:
When a finite
demonstrates...
Enough said.
-Joao
Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 07:02 AM, Joao Leao wrote:
I don't agree with Tim's suggestion that infinite-dimensional Hilbert
spaces
are somewhat ancilliary in QM and that all systems are calculable in
finite dimensional modes
of (equaly
speuclative) alternatives that explains the prevalence of these ideas. The
dust refuses to settle...
Which is why I think a list like this, with open discussion of speculations
*besides* the conventionally-sanctioned speculations, is such a good thing.
-- Ben Goertzel
Ditto,
-Joao
-deterministic. Now this is
true for each photon: once emmitted it already knows in this very
precise sense where and when it will be absorbed!
That we do not know our future in the same way is our problem,
not Quantum Mechanics and presummably not a quantum mechanical one...
-Joao Leao
computational capabilities
is an entirely more profound statement than any of
Deutsch dubious speculations...
-Joao Leao
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: Something
their belief in faith or
reason?
Sincerly,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Joao Leao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lennart Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Something for Platonists
Speaking as a devout
--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here--
- Original Message -
From: Joao Leao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:51 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Something for Platonists]
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
Joao wrote:
Speaking
for a
recent and detailed review of the issue you raise, namely
conditions-of-knowledge as conditions-of-being, a
sibject prone to post-kantian confusions
Regards,
-Joao Leao
James Rose
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian Center
The answer is that an incomplete arithmetic axiom system could presumably
by consistent, but who cares? If it is incomplete there will be true statements
that it cannot prove and we are back to the platonist position! The alternative
of an inconsistent system that is complete may actually be more
James N Rose wrote:
Joao,
:-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation situation,
as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
and gives
as it is):
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/1166/
-Joao Leao
Jesse Mazer
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard
James N Rose wrote:
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
Joao,
:-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation situation,
as would
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Joao Leao wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
As I think Bruno Marchal mentioned in a recent post, mathematicians use
the
word model differently than physicists or other scientists. But again,
I'm
not sure if model theory even makes sense if you drop all Platonic
!).
-Joao Leao
George Levy wrote:
Hi Doriano,
Welcome to the list.
You raise an interesting problem and. I don't know the answer to your
question. However, I just want to point out that an observer in relative
motion observes the rotation in the complex plane of space-time
geodesics. Could
to it...
The following paper deals with these issues specifically with some of
what Jesse Mazer brought up in this discussion:
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0305055
or
http://alixcomsi.com/The_formal_roots_of_Platonism.htm
Check it out...
-Joao Leao
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian
suggest otherwise).
Cheers,
-Joao Leao
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi All,
I have often try to explain what is mathematical realism.
May I quote the full section 24 of G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's
Apology which explain so well what I try to say?
.
Now, Hardy lacks Church thesis
ty (not necessarily prove)
the attributes of a mathematical object,
than there is an EMRcorresponding to
it." This is tentative, of course...
-Joao
-Joao Leao
scerir wrote:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system,
we can predict with certainty the value of
a physical quantity, there exists
e short and related
answers
to many post in one post.
Joao Leao ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ) wrote:
>By no means does this translate to the identification you
>suggest between what is empirical is what is... "incomplete",
>If anything physical reality sees mathematical reality "from
&
scerir wrote:
Joao wrote:
This not quite the case. In the Bohmian interpretation the collapse
is, in fact, determined by the non-local quantum potential pretty
much as the outcome of a critical phase transition which suppresses
all the branches of the superposition but the one that
Hal Finney wrote:
Joao Leao writes:
I don't believe that there is ANY question that QM is non-local! This is
the outcome of 30 years of experiments with entangled multiparticle
states. I also think that non-locality is pretty well defined in this
context (the way Bell put it) and we
Joao Leao wrote:
Your Principles are correct but the wording is not:
you should change all your use of *possible* to 'contingent'
and qualify as 'possible' instead all the invocations of 'world'
not qualified with *actual*. This because possible/actual is
a distinction that applies to worlds
These models with topological non-local features may not actually
have outsides by the same token that the Mobius band only has one
side, get it? Max Tegmark is a nice kid but he does not seem to deal
very well with his own finitude ! I am sure he is not the only one...
-Joao Leao
Norman
already are!
So there is a branching event for you: if you survive a nuclear
blast, how sure could you be that you really survived?
Laurie Anderson was fond of saying: What kills you is
not the bullett, its the hole!.
-Joao Leao
Hal Finney wrote:
David Kwinter writes:
The concept of what
Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
I will have to split mine in two installments
if you don't mind.
Ron McFarland wrote:
Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
debates!
I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below!
You state, quite
Hal,
Waht about a definition of Observer-Moment?
That would surely help me...
Thanks,
-Joao
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your next
observer moment?
The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as competing
Ron McFarland wrote:
On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote:
> Part II:
> >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
> > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent
redshift
> > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignore
Norman Samish wrote:
I've been reading about "spooky action at a distance"
at
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html
and several other
sites.
"Spooky action-at-a-distance" is a catchy but misleading description of
EPR-Bell type quantum correlations because there is no effective
scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
> time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope
of
> the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie
backwards
> and everything looks normal.
Yes, but
scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
The association between non-locality and
Hal Finney wrote:
This list is dedicated to exploring the implications
of the prospect
that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes
exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes
exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch
is real
scerir wrote:
Joao Leao:
> The association between non-locality and "retrocausality"
> (for lack of a better word) is anything but simple! In any
> case it has less to do with the flow of time than with its
> negation! [...]
Bell's theorem shows that, given the hidden varia
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
Non-separateness and identity are not the same thing!
Your argument
against dualism assumes that the duals are somehow separable and
non-mutually dependent and thus lacking a linking mechanism dualism
fails as
a viable theory. On the other hand, once we
s, and not Existence in-itself.
My words are ill-posed here, I apologize.Kindest
regards,Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Joao
Leao
To: Stephen
Paul King
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; everything-list@eskimo.com
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: In defense
Joao Leao wrote:
Dear Stephen,
I agree with you that the Forms "do not represent themselves to us"
and they remain independent of our chosen
representation --- if I understand you correctly --- that is, on how
we make our way back to them. But the latter
surely depends on
-time such as the work of
Smolin,Rovelli, Barbour and such...
These follow Leibnitz in proposing that Space
(and time) are not things but objective relations
between material objects.
I find these interesting but anti-platonic.
-Joao
scerir wrote:
From: "Joao Leao"
> Our access to
39 matches
Mail list logo
