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. The answer is 1.
>
At last a straight answer, the answer is 1.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
> time
>
Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's
incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught
us it's that what
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> With decoherence everything is a wavefunction
>
No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
more reality than lines of longitude and latitu
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".
> "God" is not that much a bad name.
>
It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and
wants to use language honestly. Never mind what y
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
>> observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
>> more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk
>> about reality you'v
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 always either dead or alive. It's j
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>> Cramer's transactional interpretation is non-local.
>>
> > Not really. It's slower-than-light, but retro.
>
If you can reach the finish line of a race before you even hear the
starting gun I'd say you're pretty damn fast.
>From Wikipedia:
"
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
is NOT symmetric.
John K Clark
--
You recei
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 nothing to do with any theory, it was found experimentall
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 that means that locality or realism
>> or both MUS
One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one
word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again.
I have been a member of the Extropian List for many years and at the
beginning of the year it is my habit to send a message to that list ab
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
> 1. Nonlocal influences
>
There are not "at least two" there are exactly two, but yes, things might
not be local.
>2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement
>
Yes, things m
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> There is no faster than light influences in QM. You need to have an
> explicit physical collapse to have that. In the MW, the non locality is
> only apparent.
>
So it's all only apparent. I hate it when people say X is a illusion
without ev
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> But "Everything happens" is just as useless as "God did it".
>
Not quite, it might not explain much but at least the "Everything happens"
theory doesn't make the problem worse. The "everything happens because God
made things that way" theory is
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they
> share the same common present moment?
>
Standing? Well then the answer is no, not if one observer is ta
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> I sorta like the MWI but apparently you are not a fan because if what
>> you say is true then the MWI is dead wrong.
>>
>
> > Explain why the following table shows that MWI is local, and realistic
> on the wave function and universal wave fu
efinite
> results.
>
Yes they do, the photon I just measured has a polarization of exactly
42.7%, true other John Clarks measured other photons and found other
values, but this john Clark got exactly 42.7% for this photon.
>> Both those things can't be right.
>>
>
> &g
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>> The wave function says everything there is to be said about how
>>> something is right now.
>>>
>>
>> >> The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right now,
>> the square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> There is no FTL in MWI.
>
If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux
that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic
theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that MWI is untrue beca
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> That old Newtonian time still exists and is what I call Present moment
> P-time. It just isn't being measured by clocks.
>
So Newtonian time exists but it doesn't do anything. And that is a pretty
good definition of a useless idea.
John K
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> According to Wheeler's empirical quantum model, (where the properties of
> a particle vanish in between observations
>
Yes that's Wheeler's theory, it's the stereotypical non-realistic
interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, unlike MWI which
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> an experiment has been proposed that tests Wheeler's theory
> http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328
>
The Pusey, Barrett, Rudolph paper (PBR) never mentions Wheeler and it only
deals with realistic theories, Wheeler's is non-realistic. PBR says
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> His inequality also depended on discounting retro-causation and
> hyper-determinism,
>
If retro-causation exists then things are not local.
> and hyper-determinism
>
If things are super-deterministic then things are not realistic. Bell
assumed
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> Several years after he found the mathematical derivation experiment
> showed that Bell's inequality was indeed violated. So a Wheeler theorists
> is free to invoke locality or non-locality as he wishes; but because MWI is
> a realistic th
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions,
>
True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumptions:
1) High School algebra and trigonometry works.
2) Things are local.
3) Things are realistic.
If those 3 assumptio
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions,
>>
>
> >> True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumptions:
> 1) High School algebra and trigonometry works.
> 2) Things are local.
> 3) Things are realistic.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM, LizR wrote:
On 6 January 2014 06:47, John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>> >>> Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions,
>>>
>>
>> >>True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumpti
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> Bell derived his inequality assuming QM with collapse
>
No he did not, Bell makes no such assumption or interpretation, in fact not
one word about Quantum Mechanics is needed in his entire derivation. None
zero zilch goose egg. And that is why ev
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Einstein principle of reality ( if without perturbing a system, I can
> predict with certainty an outcome, then there is an element of reality to
> it).
>
Yes but it doesn't necessarily go the other way, even if things are
realistic, even if
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> he assumed this time asymmetry was fundamental, not a mere statistical
> effect related to the low entropy of the initial conditions of the
> experiment.
>
A mere statistical effect?? I would argue that the second law of
thermodynamics is much m
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 , LizR wrote:
>
> >>> Bell's theorem holds only under a certain set of assumptions,
>
True. As I've said many times Bell made exactly 3 assumptions:
1) High School algebra and trigonometry works.
2) Things are local.
3) Things are realist
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jason Resch 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 Quantum Mechanics, I said Bell's inequality
can be derived without making the slightest use of i
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> >>> he assumed this time asymmetry was fundamental, not a mere
>>> statistical effect related to the low entropy of the initial conditions of
>>> the experiment.
>>>
>>
>> >> A mere statistical effect?? I would argue that the second law o
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jason Resch 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" or "the result" when talking about
a measurement, which implicitly references the notion of c
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> Bell derived his inequality assuming QM with collapse
>>
>
> >> No he did not, Bell makes no such assumption or interpretation, in fact
> not one word about Quantum Mechanics is needed in his entire derivation.
> None zero zilch goose eg
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM, LizR wrote:
>> I don't understand your point, are you arguing that time is asymmetric
>> or that it is not? The existence of neutral kaon decay strengthens the
>> already very strong argument that time is asymmetric, but only very
>> slightly. Yes a movie of neutra
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> you could have laws where a large number of initial states can all lead
> to the same final state (many cellular automata work this way, specifically
> all the ones whose rules are not "reversible"--for example, in the "Game of
> Life"
>
Yes t
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric
>
I think you would have enormous difficulty finding one single physicist on
the face of the earth who says time is symmetrical well OK,... maybe a
physicist who just hag a str
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
I think you will find relatively few physicists who expect that any new
> fundamental theory like quantum gravity will fail to have these [time]
> symmetries
>
If so then time's arrow, that is to say time's asymmetry, is not the result
of the fu
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> All the physicists I know regard the second law of thermodynamics as a
> statistical, not fundamental, law.
>
Exactly, and because statistics is based on pure logic and not on the
trendy physical theory of the day if you asked those same physici
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote
> For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the ratio
> of white to black cells [...]
>
In the Game of Life the number of black cells is always infinite, so I
don't see how you can do any ratios.
John K Clark
--
You recei
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Well, read Bell.
>
I have.
> It shows how QM violates his inequality.
>
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course that his inequality was not consistent
with Quantum Mechanics, wha
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR wrote:
>>> I'm arguing that time is symmetric,
>>>
>>
>> >> Good luck winning that argument when nearly everything we observe,
>> from cosmology to cooking, screams at us that time is NOT symmetric.
>>
>
> > Not at the quantum level,
>
If so then obviously "t
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR wrote:
> The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
>
I know.
> similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
>
I know
> and quantum mechanics is, too.
>
I know.
> The only thing in the entirety f physics that isn't based on time
> symmetric equ
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> And as I've said, there is also the fact that if the laws of physics
> don't conserve phase space volume, the 2nd law wouldn't hold either.
>
You've got it backwards, there is no fundamental law of physics concerning
the conservation of phase
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>I never claimed Liouville's theorem was a "fundamental law of physics" in
> itself,
>
Good, I agree.
> rather it is derivable as a mathematical consequence of certain features
> of the fundamental laws.
>
And of the initial conditions!
> Liouville's th
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR 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 how can realism
hold? How can the outcome of a coin flip today have a definite value
indep
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer wrot
> > In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your knowledge of
> the microstate.
>
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we know better.
> > And in quantum physics, there is nothing in principle preventing
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
> quantum level.
>
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a
quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as desired,
you coul
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> I'm not sure what "time is symmetrical" means to you.
>
The term is self evident.
> It's the equations of dynamical evolution that are t-symmetric in physics
>
Yes, time symmetrical laws of physics would usually mean that time was
symmetrical
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
> description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
> possible mathematical universe
>
Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we ever find a Theory
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> >>> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
>>> quantum level.
>>>
>>
>> >> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
>> device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated there
> is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
> minds of biological organisms.
>
OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> It [entropy] is NOT the log of the number of ways a macro-state could
> form. That would be ambiguous in any case (do different order of events
> count as different ways?
>
Yes obviously.
> the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship between
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
> appear to live in IS the real actual world
>
Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast
calculations is possible (and I can't see why it woul
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> This has nothing to do with consciousness, but it may have something to
> do with the origin of free will.
>
It's just amazing how many philosophers can devote so much time and effort
trying to figure out the origin of free will but never t
Anesthetic chemicals temporally destroy consciousness, and 115 years about
Meyer and Overton discovered a strong correlation between how potent a
chemical anesthesia was and how well it dissolves oils and lipids (fats and
waxes). Even today the reason for this connection is unclear but it still
see
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I give a coherent definition of free will in my book on Reality. Free
> will is simply the fact that some bounded system generates actions that are
> not entirely determined by its environmental inputs.
>
OK, then the term "free will" is s
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote
>
> > One possible reason for the loss of consciousness I've proposed is it
> simply stops the internal time sense. The other possibility of course is
> that it disables the specific self-referential circuits that tell an
> organism what it is
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> There are thousands of chemicals that are good organic solvents that
> aren't anesthetics. I don't think that has anything to do with it...
>
Why do you think some people like to inhale cleaning products or airplane
glue which is full of i
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is [...]
> Basically nature must choose randomly
>
So randomness is random.
> when it aligns the separate spacetime networks
>
I don't see how bringing in spacetime networks adds
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I think that one possible explaination is that neurochemistry is a very
> fragile thing. And solvents, being reactive, can easily throw a wrench into
> the whole thing.
>
But why does anesthesia just disrupt consciousness? Why does the Brain
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that does NOT mean they're
predictable. It would only take you a few minutes to write a program to
look for the first even number greater than 2 th
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > nobody would buy an argument of a lawyer saying that his client is not
> guilty, because his client is just a bunch of particles obeying to the SWE.
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
bunch of parti
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> If a rational agent can compute its utility to determine its next course
> of action, then so can any observer with access to the same
> environmental information.
>
Yes, but only by going through the same process the rational agent does.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR wrote:
>> I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
>> bunch of particles obey the Schrodinger Wave Equation, but I'll be damned
>> it I can see what that has to do with his guild or innocence; that bunch of
>> particles killed a
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:14 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> >>> The question is about moral responsibility
>>>
>>
>> >> The question is about the purpose of punishment.
>>
>
> > Well, that's a different question
>
That is the ONLY question the law should consider.
> but as originally phrased it seemed to
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:45 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> I think Bruno gave a good definition of 'free will' as unpredictability
> (even by oneself).
>
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will that are not
gibber
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> "Free Will" is the inability to predict your own actions even in a
>> stable environment.
>>
>
> > Yes, that's (almost) my definition.
>
It can't be unless you've recently changed your definition. You said on May
11, 2010:
"I don't see h
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR wrote:
>> You do the same error with "free will" than with "God". You decide to
>> take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea, instead of
>> using the less gibberish sense, to focus on what we really try to talk and
>> share about.
>>
>
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I said "almost". I defined free-will not really by an inability, but by
> the knowledge of that inability.
>
It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below is still
utterly ridiculous:
"I don't see how the notion of mora
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You attack the straw man, again.
>
Billions of people believe in this "straw man" , and that is exactly why
using the word "God" is totally irresponsible if you're not talking about a
intelligent conscious being who created the universe.
>
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR wrote:
> I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
> them.
>
I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet use:
the word "God" refers to an intelligent conscious being who created the
universe. And the most
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
>
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is just
nuts and stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's
cutting edge scientifi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
> book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
>
Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
had to say about God:
"it was, of course, a li
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
> planet once used: the word "Life" refers to some organic matter filled with
> elan vital.
>
Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws of
carbon
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> Refer to my discourse on solving "the hard problem".
>
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that clearly
and unambiguously explains exactly what "the hard problem" is. Exactly
what is it that you expect a successful co
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
>
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic as
intelligence or consciousness an
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
>>
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
> statements lacking proof.
>
Yes.
> There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose
> falsehood is impossible;
>
A proof is a FINITE number of sta
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
>> I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
>> goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
>> existence of the uni
as one of the greatest
sources of discord in America."
John K Clark
>
>
> On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> > John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
&g
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR wrote:
> The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s
>
Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s,
but only in the late 1990s was it discovered that the universe was not just
expanding but accelerating due to someth
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
> After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
> Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
>
No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just "I do not believe in
a personal God". Besides not answering or
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if
>> the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not
>> intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it
>> adds to clari
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> You could always just add it and its negation to the list of axioms
> (though not at the same time, of course) and see where that leads,
>
Axioms should be simple things that are self evidently true, neither
Goldbach's Conjecture nor its n
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote
>> Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that
>> clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what "the hard problem" is.
>>
>
>
> In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of the
> brain seems to ma
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or
>> falsehood of something;
>
>
> > Not establishing the truth, but establishing the theoremhood.
>
I stand corrected; although it would be true if the axioms in the logical
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > atheists are christians.
>
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.
>
And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly
from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, astrology and
numerology.
> *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious e
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus.
>
I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor
worship for one day.
> and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth
> without using a truth predicate.
>
I di
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of
> drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.
>
> > I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
> complete 3p theory of the brain
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
> A's clock slow
>
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the
other
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
>> experience of the subjective.
>>
>
> > Nice for you.
>
Indeed.
> But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an
> other person,
>
I can't even prove that
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> At all past times, the universe at all distances was expanding at the
> same rate that we can observe it expanding only at a SINGLE distance.
>
But it hasn't always been expanding at the same rate. The universe is 13.8
billion years old a
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
> BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
> trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on
> earth. So if the acce
tly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
>> pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the johnkclak
>> program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.
>>
>
> > Only by a confusion 1p and 3p,
>
OK now were getting to the heart of the
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off
> from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip.
>
Then each would see the others clock as running slower than his own. You
might think this would
by a computer
processing information then the world that consciousness interacts with is
also cause by information. And information like consciousness has no unique
position.
> If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps supported by many
> other computations (in a physical universe or
; explain why the object of your desk appear to be made of local matter
>>
>>
>> >> Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the John
>> Clark subprogram;
>>
>
>
> By God?
>
By evolution.
> who?
>
The correct question is not who
1 - 100 of 6761 matches
Mail list logo
