for us from "here", the flimsy and limited "models" we
formulate for our 'world' we know.
I think it is based to some extent on Robert Rosen's ideas, adding upon
ideas I borrowed from David Bohm.
To your final question:
I am not sure I am 'false'
Kim,
I join Brent's reasonable reply with "some more".
My opinion about 'LAWS' (in legal sense) is a societal compromise within
the happenings of a cultural setup. Physical "laws"
are observations of happenings explained within the 'latest' knowledge-base
we got. They change as we learn. There is
e if I missed his idea, or just continued it. Anyway my
'infinite' complexity does not qualify for being subject to "science".
Best for 'your' summer
John Mikes
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 08:04:24AM -0500, spud
Russell,
5 minutes after I "sent" my letter on complexity to you, here is your next
piece explaining that I misunderstood the topic.
Of cours "a theory on complex numbers" is quite different from what I had
in mind.
Sorry
John M
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun
are talking about. Also being cloaked in the language of category
> theory, they are difficult to grok for the average scientist who have
> not been exposed to such concepts. Bruno can empathise with this,
> having a similar problem with modal logic.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Nov
are far from the omniscient
level and I expect many novelties to show up - we do not even fantasize
about - today.
Otherwise I appreciate the in part concluding results: our present line of
technology, what I try to enjoy with thanks.
John Mikes
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM, wrote:
>
r knowledge base (of yesterday) and improve on THAT whenever we 'get'
something more to it.
Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree,
please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit).
John Mikes
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:44 PM, benjayk
wrote:
&g
Dear Bruno,
I think you (not you alone, it includes the esteemed 'conventional
scientific establishment' as well) got it backwards:
not to start with my own ignorance about "what do we call "LIFE", but from
the folk-meaning of it on: whatever we identify as that moumenon, is NOT a
*"...quantum pro
involved in such misconstrued vocabularies. It makes it very hard to stay
"scientific".
I don't think you aspire for the title: "The *Priest* of *Arithmetix*" (or
the *Universal computer*)?
John Mikes
PS. Upon your earlier remark "if you accept an artificial brain from the D
enschen's Wille ist ein Himmelreich" (a man's will is a 'heavenly'
extension) and so is his mentality. IMO we know only a fraction of it so
far. That, too, in a 1p interpreted abridgement.
John Mikes
On 2/21/10, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 21 February 2010 23:
Bruno, thanks for the 'vocal' approval of my (logical) position.
I could not think of more satisfaction.
John M
On 2/22/10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> On 21 Feb 2010, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno,
> interesting exchange with Stephen.
>
&
Jesse,
your gmail 'test' arrived perfectly at my gmail mailbox. Just FYI.
John Mikes
On 2/23/10, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> I've been having some trouble with the formatting of messages from my
> hotmail account, so I'm trying to see if I can send messages to the
ill in the unknown??).
The many question-marks represent the inadequacy of our vocabularies
(plural) illustrated on this list by many "what do you mean by..."
questions.
Thanks for looking into my agnosticism and help me resolve some *"I dunno"-*s.
John
On 2/23/10, David N
Marty,
although I am not Bruno and do not intend to speak for him in any sense, the
concept of 'free will' has been invented on two different bases:
1. The ignorance of motivations in the widest sense, our limited access to
factors (relations) involved in a 'decision' - we know only a fraction of
Brent, nice statement:
* "But it's certainly not a deterministic universe" *
**
I have to take your word, because the reference you gave said: * "NOT
FOUND"*
So what kind of a 'universe' is it? bootstrap, self reflecting autodidacta?
Creator-made?
John M
**
**
On 3/11/10, Brent Meeker wrot
; And here's a later, stronger version that uses some weaker premises.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 3/11/2010 2:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent, nice statement:
>
> * "But it's certainly not a deterministic unive
27; smart minds thinking in different ways . Some I may
approve-of, with a certain "I dunno".
John Mikes
On 3/14/10, Wei Dai wrote:
>
> Recently I heard the news that Max Tegmark has joined the Advisory Board of
> SIAI (The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intel
n with. And so on
I don't feel ready to handle the situation by my own ideas.
John Mikes
On 3/15/10, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This article is most troubling to be as it seems that its
> argument has become accepted by many people without consi
cated
machine connectivities. We still program within our known domains.
We still cannot exceed our limited (model-view) knowledge base.
John Mikes
*
*
**
*
*
On 3/16/10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 16 March 2010 20:29, russell standish wrote:
> > I've been following
Brent:
why do you believe IN *"QUALIA"?* they are just as human assumptions (in our
belief system) as* "VALUE"* (or, for that matter: to take seriously your
short (long?) term memories).
A* "ZOMBIE"* is the subject of a thought experiment in our humanly
aggrandizing anthropocentric boasting. A dog
d capabilities. Even the
'beyond' is fixed into the 'beneath'.
We have to step further than what may be called today "sci-fi" if we try to
expand our world - at least our thinking about more than what we 'know' now.
I have no practical suggestions.
With awe
Hey, correspondants:
Is this Skeletori answering to an unmarked (>) remarker, or is this an
unnamed post-fragment (>) reflected upon by an unsigned "Skeletori'?
(just to apply some 'etiquette' to facilitate our reading)
John M
On 4/9/10, Skeletori wrote:
>
> > I think for the hardware design to
nixing the Pepsi or Coke stocks.
I rather limit my unlimited capabilities and have a beer.
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubsc
hing to eat, was miserable and
hungry during WWII and *'dreamed'* about delicious food...
Not a good memory though
John Mikes
On 4/11/10, silky wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > In an uploaded state you could spend a
o a more
involved one:
I, as a 'universal computer' (god?) am driven *by what* in my *computing*?
What does my mentality assumedly apply beyond that 6Wmin or so keeping the
neurons biologically alive?
John M
On 4/12/10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> John,
>
> On 12 Apr
On Apr 15, 11:21 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I agree with the above and pushing the idea further has led me to the
> conclusion that intelligence is only relative to an environment. If you
> consider Hume's argument that induction cannot be justified - yet it is
> the basis of all our beliefs - you
Dear List,
for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you
physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.)
So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 different
items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20.
It did not
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Maybe... Technological Singularity ?
>
> 2010/4/30 John Mikes
>
>> Dear List,
>> for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you
>> physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.)
>
nd so named it the Singularity,
> now called Technnological Singularity to avoid confusion with the GR
> term.
>
> This is my potted history - Wikipedia has an even more nuanced version
> if you're interested. Interestingly (I did not know this), Stan Ulam
> described the concept w
Brent: 2 quotes from your text:
1."You seem like the man who wrote to Bertrand Russell, "There is no way to
refute solipism. I don't know why more people don't believe it."
- - " AND: - -
2."So if you don't adopt solipism, if you assume there is some world outside
the flow of your thoughts to w
Dear Rex,
I went through that long back-and-forth with Brent (not sure which >>
meaning whom)
and recalled Brono's "we don't 'know': we assume (as in scinece). I also
recalled my poor opinion about statistical/probabilistical judgements
(because they depend on the limits of counting and sequenc
do not see much principle difference
between Kant's idealism and conventional physicalism. Or the Anthropocentric
Intelligent Design either.
John M
"
On 5/6/10, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> Ha! Indeed, these nesting levels do get fairly obscure.
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at
Stathis:
how about a wording version of your remark:
"you may as well claim that we should not make up an "infinite universe
story" that would boggle the human mind"?
I am not against the 'exist', because any idea does exist (at least in the
mind of the initiator).
John M
On 5/20/10, Stathis Pap
wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2010 05:26, John Mikes wrote:
> > Stathis:
> > how about a wording version of your remark:
> > "you may as well claim that we should not make up an "infinite universe
> > story" that would boggle the human mind"?
> >
. We reached
such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew in
looking into all the facets believed to be "true". Theories are sacrosanct,
the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the
basics. We assume them. And build on that.
John M
ersa, Brent's timespan can be a 'blinking'. Magnitude-scales are
insecure: we like our body-size median.
John Mikes
On 5/24/10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes wrote:
> > Stathis,
> >
> > you seemed bored: you jumped
*Stathis wrote:*
*You may as well claim that an infinite single universe should not
existbecause it boggles the human mind.
*
**
*Stathis Papaioannou*
*---*
We are talking *"think of"* rather than* 'exist'* - unless you consider it
as 'existing in s
Brent:
and where is the decimal point?
JM
On 6/2/10, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Hey Bruno, how'd you like a seven figure salary (in USD).
>
> Brent
>
> Original Message
>
> Something like this is happening these days, or it seems so
> :-)http://christianmarks.wordpress.com/2010/0
Congrats, Colin,
very interesting ideas. Some time ago I learned from you a principle that
forms an intensive part of my 'worldview': the 'mini-solipsism' i.e. the
individual views everybody has about the world - differently, as formulated
for himself from fragments received from 'reality and indiv
(what I do with pleasure any time
when I learn something new).
Kabbalah must be something serious if you make a living by sudying it.
Respectfully though
John Mikes
On 6/13/10, Rabbi Rabbit wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I entered to your discussion list from the back door. I am not a
>
Bruno, I don't claim to follow your discussion with Colin in 'good'
understanding, but there was a sentence to which I ask some explanation:
*"I study just the hypothesis that the brain is Turing emulable."*
**
Do you mean 'brain' as the *physical tissue-mass* (not likely), or the *
brainfunction
Dear R.Rabbit,
thanks for the consideret reply and your willingness to expand your domain
into relations with other domaines. You see, we are already in trouble with
22 letters (never mind 27, or the mathematical operator battle) about ONLY
the NAME of God. What is in a name? whatever callers like
Dear George,
I was missing more of your contributions on this list lately (years?). Let
me reflect to a few of your topics:
*Chaos.*
A decade or so ago I was named 'resident chaotician' on another list - later
changed my mind when I was disenchanted by the 'physical chaologists' who
picked some 'c
Brent (and Bruno?)
I salute Brent as fellow agnostic (cf: your closing sentence).
Then again I "THINK" (for me, comparing my 4th to 5th language) "reason" is
slightly different in taste from "raison" - closer to Bruno's
motherly vocabulary. Anyway, both are the products of human thinking, human
log
of much more than we can include into
our 'rationality' or whatever. The wholeness in its entirety influences the
happenings by all the relations between all the unlimited ingredients into
an "outcome". We know only part of those so our conclusions are illusions.
We assume wh
Dear Bruno,
on diverse lists I bounce into the 'numbers' idea - in different variations.
I wonder if your position states that the world (whatever) has been
'erected' (wrong word) based on integer numbers and their additive
multiplicity, or it can be 'explained' by such?
It makes a big difference i
es this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular
> numbers are inventions?
> If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me,
> counterintuitive.
>
> Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first understood by
> humans to some
Bruno wrote:
* ( - "...are true independently of you, matter, universe, bibles, etc.
*- )
* No theorem of math, even of intuitionist math makes any sense,
without such belief*..."
*
*WHO'S BELIEF?* or rather: *WHAT"S BELIEF*? does a snail believe that
2+13=15, or a rock?
I bet for the an
;s all we can use. Even pertaining to communicated (3rd pers.?)
information, which first gets - adjusted to our personal indiviual mindset -
OUR 1st pers. experience.
John Mikes
On 7/31/10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2010, at 00:49, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 30 July 2010
Brian,
nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's
application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the
stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano
axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the origination of
numbers.
The message-text was missing. Please mail it FMI (for my information)
John M
On 8/3/10, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3047 - Release Date: 08/03/10
> 02:35:00
>
--
You received t
ubstituting for
"many/few" in the extremely diverse scales for (humanly) unidentified
features.
As you see, I accept a good argument.
Thanks
John M
On 8/2/10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2010/8/2 John Mikes
>
>> Brian,
>> nothing could be more remote for
e we in a
"mathematical omniscience" already? Is our restriction to the 'naturals' -
natural, or just a consequence of our insufficient knowledge (caabilities)?
May I quote a smart person: there are no stupid questions, only stupid
answers. I ask them.
John Mikes
On 8/4/10, Br
Dear Sami,
(first time that I have an exchange with you, so: *greetings!)*
I am a bit negative towards ontology, because it postulates an 'existence'
to describe and such is hard to identify. A second difficulty arises in a
descriptive view of a dynamic (constantly changing) world, most likely a
"s
Dear Sami,
thanks for your multiple agreement, (not that I could do anything if we
disagree - except acknowledging it)
in your 9-3-10 post in which you wrote among others:
*
*"The subject of this group: to discuss the idea that all possible
universes exist. *
*Here "exist" is used in the absolute,
Brent and Rex:
after many many discussions I suffered along - reading utter stupidity, this
one is a refreshingly reasonable one.
Most assign to so called atheists arguments of 'almost believeing'
superstitionists. I don't call myself 'atheist',
with the name requiring a 'god' to not-believeing in.
Evgeniy,
you may read anything and the contrary of it. We have to make up *our own
mind* for ourselves, I mean: *not to persuade others to accept it*, yet
maybe *include* in our version whatever we find reasonable in all those
(contradictory?) opinions that have been published by "smart" scientists
Bruno:
thanks for the "I think" in your text below - also: I cannot argue
against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God" to
deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of *hearsay
belief systems*, like *theology* (as *religion* mainly). What I mea
Friends,
that reminds me of my 1/2 c profession in - more or less - chemistry with a
conclusion that averted the brainwashing received in college (and applied in
my successful R&D work as long as it lasted) that the chemical 'formulae' of
compounds describe 'ingredients'.
You mentioned H2O - which
Evgeniy, I may be the one agreeing with your sentence 1Z did not hear so
far. Maybe he is right. Let me try to explain why I am congruent with your
suggestion:
*Reductionism *(as I identify it, - not congruent with the classical
definitions - is the process in which the ongoing conventional science
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/07/end-of-reductionism.html
>
> However I cannot explain fully my feeling. So basically I just follow what
> other people say and try to think it over.
>
> Evgenii
>
> on 19.09.2010 21:13 John Mikes said the following:
>
>> Evgeniy, I may
ntents/function limited as it may be.
(My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen).
What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we call a
"universe" or "existence" is hazy. No outside view.
With best wishes to 2011 and beyond
John Mikes
--
You receive
cts
to
> distinguish numbers from each other! An interesting discussion of this can
> be found here: http://kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/time_XIV.pdf
>
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Mikes
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:19 AM
>
Dear Bruno,
you wrote to Stephen:
"...A machine is just a number interpreted by a universal number. A
universal number is a number u such that there is an arithmetical relation R
with R(u, x, y, z) <-> phi_x(y) = z provable in PA (say)."
I wonder if an ' *a r i t h m e t i c a *l relation' (any*
Dear Stephen (- and Friends, especially Bruno)
you quoted from Mauldin's p. 409:
“If an active physical system supports a phenomenal state, how could the
presence or absence of a causally disconnected object effect that state? How
could the object enhance or imped
Hi, Colin,
I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your ideas and
even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a praise or a
threat).
Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of "science" - even
"scientist"?
(sometimes I consider an 'average' (=multitude o
omparison of the already known
items - blown up to "truth". Criticism may be more than that, if we do not
stick to "(reasonably) scientific".
Sorry,
John
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Colin Hales
wrote:
> Interleaved...
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
>
> Hi,
Stathis,
"upload the human brain?"
I suppose (and hope) you are talking about the wider meaning of "brain", not
the physiological tissue (fless) figment the 2002 medical science tackles
with in our crania. THAT extended brain which is ready to monitor (report?)
unexpect(able)ed mental function
ions/expansions that will be added to 'yesterday's' inventory.)
Even if we pretend to free-up and step beyond - as in 'fantastic' sci-fi.
John M
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:53 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
e a prosperous day
John M
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:40 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> > Stathis,
> >
> > my imagination does not run that high. If I imagine myself as an alien
> > scientist, I would be self centered
Above X the system continued all the way to 50 - showing a special
arrangement for the "I"
sign for numerals.
After which they continued to the hundred (C) which was so much that it
needed extra care.
Who had 100 oxen? not even Cincinnatti or his Latin predeccessors.
JM
*
*
Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is hard to
decipher to whom I write: Brent, Stathis, maybe others who just barged in?
So I go topical. First: randomness in the mind.
I am functionally against the term because it would eliminate all
logical consequence and order wha
llowable for us today and
you may call it 'it's algorithm'. It is all included into 'everything'.
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 2/13/2011 3:29 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is h
David,
I was laughing all the way from the computer that '7 does not exist'. And
yes, it does not.
Do qualia exist without the substrate they serve for as qualia?
It goes into our deeper thought to identify 'existing' -
I am willing to go as far as "if our mind handles it, 'it' DOES exist"
so the
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 "Science - Religion" upon which
Russell wrote in ire:
"Don't you dare calling my science a religion!" expressing similar (almost)
basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your particular stance), but
visualizing what I call 'conventional' science,
m.a. and Jason go into philosophy.
Firstly: eternal is not a time limit, not even with that questionable
figment of "time" we use in our imaging about our universe (for visualizing
a 'physical' system).
Secondly it does not seem so safe to step out from our restricted and widely
accepted solipsis
Dear Bruno,
let me reply in fragments - your two responses are too comprehensive for one
post for me.
So for now: T R U T H .
*"I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that is
the motor of my research."*
is IMO very different from your: *"Now what is a truth?..."* you go o
quot;theos" or "religion" usage, words
can be used
in any meaning we identify them to be used for. And he is pretty precise in
that.
John
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 2/19/2011 9:17 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> let me rep
*Brent,*
*I agree with most of your statements (whatver value this may have...) Let
me interject below.*
*John M
*
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 3/6/2011 7:16 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>> It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other
>>> > theories are too
tionality to be discovered?
With my agnosticism (ignorance about the not-yet disclosed parts of the
wholeness) it is hard to agree with any proof, truth, or evidence. The most
I can do is a "potentially possible".
John Mikes
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote:
> O
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*" Is the "causes" word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say
that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are
assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of
view of many (a fix
Thanks, David, for a reasonable post.
I admire Evgeniy for his boldness of a frontal attack against conventional
physicality's terms.
I would go a step further (is it a surprise?) like: ontology is rather a
description of a stagnant knowledge (state? even if dynamic) of *a
phase*considered in conve
(topics, factors, relations and
even 'numbers') is a restricted limitational view in the
'model' representing the present level of our development - of which
conventional sciences form a part.
Comparing e.g. the caveman-views with Greek mythology and with modern
'scientific'
from: John Mikes
to: everything-list@googlegroups.com
date: Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM
subject: Complete *Thepry* of Everything - - *Now* corrected:* "Theory..."
*mailed-by gmail.com <http://mailed-bygmail.com/>
---
('thermo')---XD:
S
all? - (not
only in our simplifying translation?)
Topics may not be in an unlinmited interconnectedness of them all, unless WE
assign our interest and it's known relations into restrictions into
'topical' models.
So please, give me some time to let my mind 'sink into' your
Bruno and Brent:
"machines" either 'real' numbers' or not, they are humanly devised, even if
we state not to be able to 'understand' them. I want to venture into domains
where our 'human ways cannot apply e.g. (silly even to attempt to give an
examples on whatever we are not capable to knowing) if
es in the life-process (if there is such) with 500 years
changes of tissues, chemical machines (glands, sensors, potentials and
flexibility etc.) bodily coordination and mental compliance in the
physiological processes.
Good game, anyway.
Best regards
John Mikes
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM,
The exchange between SPK and Bruno is hard to personalize, there is am
unmarked paragraph after a par marked "...
so I was in doubt whether it is Bruno, or Stephen who wrote:
*"His use of the word "causation" is unfortunate but we can forgive
him because there is no correct word for the
t apply to a universal machine which 'knows it all' - but we
indeed have no idea how it works and what it may conclude.
Deduced in my common sense of agnostic ignorance.
John
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 2:06 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> The exchange
te I thought having already insisted on the
> point. I am sorry because it is not completely in the topic:
>
>
> On 07 Apr 2011, at 17:42, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Thanks, Brent, - however:
> I did not restrict myself to physics (lest: 'fundamental') and had a
> sho
Rex, Evgeniy and List:
Are we speaking about a mysterious 'free will' that is unrelated to the rest
of the world and depends only "how we like it"? In my view our 'likings' and
'not' depend on the concerning experience and genetic built in our mentality
(whatever THAT is composed of) in limitation
*Brent wrote:*
**
*"I would point out that "indeterminism" can have two different sources.
One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets
amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is the
unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that
rue randomness (in math): "Take ANY number..." (puzzles).
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> > *Brent wrote:*
> >
> > **
> > *"I would point out that "indeterminism" can have two di
ch other,
the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional
sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions
have their own versions, every
one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is
'stupid'.
Regards
John
n Thu, A
domness' we happen to live in. Some origin - beyond my present
knowledge-based imagination - and some course of the Everything - who knows
where? - at a certain point of which we 'exist' and view the World as well
as our capabilities allow.
John M
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:3
ice figment and we can live with it for now.
John
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply):
>
>
sness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse
>> (like with the wave collapse), or even less plausible, to suppress the
>> existence of computations in the arithmetical world, which is as impossible
>> as suppressing the existence of a number.
>> So the cho
other you less with my nightmares in the future (but don't count
on it). .
John M
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/29/2011 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> On 28 Apr 2011, at 21:40, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno, allow
works many times (sub)-unconsciously, #2 provides many times unformulated
changes to naturally occurring (free?) choices even without our conscious
involvement.
the 'robot-like' free will is not likely in a 'non-robot-like' thinking
person with memory etc.
I submit these id
Meeker wrote:[On the everything list]
>
> On 5/5/2011 11:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:31:50PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
>
> Russell,
>
>
> this is my personal way of thinking in realization of the continual
>
> epistemi
701 - 800 of 1158 matches
Mail list logo
