The two transparent boxes can have two possible outcomes. One is that the
player only takes box B, which contains $1 million (I believe is the agreed
amount). The other is that the player sees the million dollars, takes both
boxes, and proves that the oracle is not infallible,
The problem with
On 12 December 2014 at 14:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
If both boxes were transparent, that would screw up the oracle's
ability to make the prediction, since there would be a feedback from
the oracle's attempt at prediction to the subject. The oracle can
predict if I'm
I remember looking at that once before, and I still got very confused.
On 12 December 2014 at 17:28, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I cam across this today and found it quite useful. It gives me a better
perspective for understanding a lot of what Bruno has said:
Maybe it's a delayed choice experiment and retroactively collapses the wave
function, so your choice actually *does* determine the contents of the
boxes.
(Just a thought...maybe the second box has a cat in it...)
On 11 December 2014 at 09:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
Well apparently...
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html
I like this bit
When something is already endless, we can add 1 and it is stil endless.
As any cryptic crossworder will tell you, stil really IS endless (it has
no end - i.e. no last 'l')
--
You received this message because
On 10 December 2014 at 20:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
elderly who get serious dementia
and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.
From autopsies after they die their brains are
On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
She is at Smith College. Go for it
If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I think
we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of this,
because it needs lots of research
...@gmail.com wrote:
You can do your own research.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
She is at Smith College. Go for it
If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I
On 11 December 2014 at 15:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some
research on it, why should I have to duplicate it?
You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered
Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
there's a summary? :-)
On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject:
On 10 December 2014 at 06:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You can't separate religion from authority. Religion is
institutionalized Platonism. From prehistoric times every tribe had their
shaman who explained the world and predicted things based on his visions
and revelations
I've been looking for the first slide, but can't find it - can you give me
the time when it appears?
Actually I may have found it - not the first, but around 18 minutes in - it
says:
Consciousness without a brain
* Deathbed recovery of lost consciousness
* Complex consciousness with minimal
Yes I've seen FP, though not for a long time. I seem to remember it's a
cartoon (a very good one!)
On 10 December 2014 at 14:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you read The Genocides by Thomas M Disch?
Super
http://gofossilfree.org/creative-action-ideas/
While I'm on the subject...
http://ln.is/bit.ly/1ClIO
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/nature-does-not-negotiate-Typhoon-Hagupit/blog/51613
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141207091648.htm
--
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
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To
On 8 December 2014 at 18:38, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
What are your thoughts about the huge, earthquake-proof megalithic stone
structures around the world, the planned cities of the Indus civilisation,
the astronomical alignment and knowledge of precession with which the
On 8 December 2014 at 23:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Dec 2014, at 22:17, LizR wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 01:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Dec 2014, at 10:37, LizR wrote:
That's a curious question. The ruins and record indicate
On 9 December 2014 at 07:50, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Atheists have no religious beliefs
Of course they don't, but just because something isn't true will never
EVER stop religious nincompoops from saying it over and
On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a skeptic. The
original meaning is very close to agnostic but it has been slowly sliding
into a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of
On 8 December 2014 at 01:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Dec 2014, at 10:37, LizR wrote:
That's a curious question. The ruins and record indicate that there was no
ancient civilisation that had anything like the knowledge or resources of
modern day technology. For example
On 8 December 2014 at 03:31, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:27 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 December 2014 at 05:20, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/4
On 6 December 2014 at 18:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/5/2014 3:16 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
As a person who takes the Quran literally, I'm not at all surprised as it
is stated that the ancients had been given much more, and we haven't been
given a tenth of what they had.
On 6 December 2014 at 19:25, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06-Dec-2014, at 11:15 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/5/2014 9:56 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 06-Dec-2014, at 10:25 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/5/2014 3:16 AM, Samiya Illias
On 5 December 2014 at 20:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
existence.
What's the difference? Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case?
the example we point to when asked
On 6 December 2014 at 05:20, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
existence.
What's the difference
On 5 December 2014 at 05:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Dec 2014, at 17:01, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 4, 2014 2:09:11 PM UTC, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
The Hindu cycles seem more plausible then the Quran, Soonah, and Bukhari.
Yet, no faith describes how
I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
existence.
--
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
to
On 3 December 2014 at 17:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Liz, I am with you here that evolution and e=mc2 make for highly visible,
honey pots tempting all manner of oddball, legend-in-their-minds geniuses
(or the pious pompous religious
On 3 December 2014 at 17:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Not only that I notice that all the characters in you post have previously
been posted by me. STOP THIS PLAGARISM!
That gave me a much needed laugh, thanks Brent!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 3 December 2014 at 19:25, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
It goes without saying you seek to make a statement about me somewhere
there.
I'll try to catch my flaws a little more frequently. But something I
definitely do is apologize when I see I've mistreated someone. I mean here.
I wonder if
On 2 December 2014 at 22:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Dec 2014, at 01:18, LizR wrote:
Unicorns exist, but they are more commonly called rhinos.
Hmmm... OK. With a large definition of unicorn. I mean those are very
large unicorns!
The point is that may have been
On 3 December 2014 at 16:00, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
But then you say The multiverse did it
In the library, the kitchen, the study and the drawing room ... with the
gun, the rope, the lead piping and the poison
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 3 December 2014 at 16:29, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was
wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that
Einstein was wrong. There appears to
Unicorns exist, but they are more commonly called rhinos.
Of course unicorns may exist, in that evolution may have produced something
that looks like a unicorn on a planet somewhere. They aren't *that*
unlikely (unless you include the stuff about virgins and so on).
--
You received this message
For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was
wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that
Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that
attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better
pickings
OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
the
On 1 December 2014 at 14:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:19 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 1 December 2014 at 14:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
I acknowledge that most people here have me on ignore or appear to.
Acknowledged and respected. I would really appreciate views/corrections to
this point however. Therefore would it be possible for anyone who does not
have me on ignore to
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems
like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though
for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that
should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for
On 29 November 2014 at 04:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim Jones:
Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing
intelligence without consciousness.
iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc.
etc.
If you believe all
Is this a violation of the 2nd law, or is it an outcome of the 2nd law that
doesn't take the expected form? (I would expect a violation of the law to
involve something anti-entropic going on, which would look to us like time
running backwards).
On 29 November 2014 at 10:48, George
On 29 November 2014 at 06:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Nov 2014, at 22:35, LizR wrote:
On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence
to develop competence.
IN my humble
, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/28/2014 12:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 29 November 2014 at 04:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim Jones:
Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution
producing intelligence without consciousness.
iPhones. Smart fridges
On 29 November 2014 at 11:59, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the
space of say our galaxy intact.
Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each
of us.
And if the latter, how would we
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing
mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
I don't understand how this works, so I can't comment on the details. I
seem to remember asking for a simple version that a dummy like me can
understand - and don't recall seeing it, although maybe I missed it.
But in any case the 2nd law isn't a law of physics, it's just what tends to
happen
On 27 November 2014 at 23:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Nice :)
One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we
imagine
On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence
to develop competence.
IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence.
Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently -
November 2014 at 10:35, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence
to develop competence.
IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence
On 28 November 2014 at 10:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence
to develop
On 28 November 2014 at 10:56, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:41 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You need consciousness
November 2014 at 02:37, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I shouldn't have clicked this.
Please tell me you will post the solutions so I can have some peace.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
http://mayaofauckland.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/do-quantum
Have you read The Genocides by Thomas M Disch?
Super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but only in the same way
we try to eradicate aphids from an orchard.
On 27 November 2014 at 02:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Nice :)
One of the funny things about our sense of
On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
evidence to support this.
Liz,
On 27 November 2014 at 01:29, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Turns out that I do not understand it either.
The pinhole thought experiment should decrease the coherent photons
by a factor of 2 regardless of whether the incoherent photons
are in separate branches or not.
So the
On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one aspect
of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are two or more
types of entropy, therefore, there are at least
http://mayaofauckland.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/do-quantum-mechanics-overcharge-not-after-renormalisation/
In case anyone out there is into cryptic crosswords. This has a bit of a
science theme :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
evidence to support this.
On 25 November 2014 at 23:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The article was about the bad fit.
--
You received
On 26 November 2014 at 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If intelligent behavior is not a test for consciousness then how do you
know that such machines are not conscious? For that matter how do you know
that a rock
On 26 November 2014 at 04:38, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think John's post implied that conscious was another word for
intelligence. I think his position is that a being could be conscious
without being
Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large
scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is
there evidence of this sort of change?
On 25 November 2014 at 10:48,
None of this is relevant if the multiverse differentiates rather than
splitting. Then you ends with the same number of photons you started with;
the only difference is that previously they were fungible, but now they
aren't. I thought the general view was that the MWI involves
differentiation of
I believe the answer is that worlds differentiate in the MWI, rather than
splitting. There is already a continuum of identical worlds, which
differentiates into 2 continua, one with spin up and one with spin down. At
least according to the diagrams in FOR of a coin toss etc (iirc)
--
You
I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone is
fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious machines,
which (according to Bruno, at least) are possible, are another matter. The
main difference being that conscious beings have their own objectives.
Wilczek also says something like this only seems like a problem if you
assume energy is a substance.
I would also add
* You need to take a god's-eye view to see the problem, and such views
aren't possible in the MWI.
* The MWI appears to suggest the multiverse is infinitely differentiable,
and
On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.
I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no
mention of expanding galaxies.
--
You received this
On 25 November 2014 at 13:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines. A smartphone
is fairly intelligent, for example, at doing what it does. Conscious
machines, which (according
On 25 November 2014 at 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/24/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 November 2014 at 13:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we need to worry about intelligent machines
On 25 November 2014 at 16:24, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
We've made intelligent machines,
Yes.
but I don't know of any conscious ones
If intelligent behavior is not a test for consciousness then how do you
On 22 November 2014 05:36, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation is easily reversible (and it's
continuous and deterministic too), but with regard to the reversibility of
time that's a irrelevant
On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole,
where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
Energy is not constant in a
On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or
thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can grasp?
It seems to me that if
On 24 November 2014 at 09:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/23/2014 12:52 AM, LizR wrote:
On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
whole, where information and energy are constant
On 24 November 2014 at 00:32, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.
So I assume that if the branches don't multiply, but only differentiate
from a continuum of identical universes (which David Deutsch says is what
they do) the energy
On 24 November 2014 at 19:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
A.I. is no closer than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.
Of one thing I am certain, someday computers will become more intelligent
than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to
name. And I
Every time something appears to violate the 2nd law, gravity is involved.
There is some sort of tension between thermodynamic and gravitational
equilibrium, although obviously any system far from equilibrium should tend
towards it (if it does anything at all). (Hence my stipulation of flat
space
Is it possible to explain to a person of modest intelligence such as myself
exacty how you're violating the 2nd law?
(Otherwise I may feel compelled to quote Arthur Eddington...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
This is very interesting, if I can just get my head round it. Traditional
thermodynamics basically tells us that a closed system in a macroscopically
distinct state (and that is able to do so) will evolve with high
probability towards a state that is macroscopically indistinguishable from
most of
The average kinetic energy of an air molecule is zero, I imagine, because
they're all travelling in different directions and cancel out? Or doesn't
it work like that?
On 21 November 2014 13:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/20/2014 3:57 PM, George wrote:
Thanks Bruno, Liz and
In case anyone is interested...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Lee - Avaaz av...@avaaz.org
Date: 20 November 2014 07:28
Subject: The Maasai cry for help
To: lizj...@gmail.com lizj...@gmail.com
*Tanzania’s government is tearing up the promise we helped the Maasai win.
Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information -
the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are
On 18 November 2014 18:06, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:53:28PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say that expansion of the universe is almost necessary, not
contingent.
On 19 November 2014 07:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In choosing examples, John, you need to keep in mind that many on this
list think the Harry Potter novels are non-fiction - somewhere. :-)
As far as I know David Deutsch introduced the idea.
--
You received this message
On 19 November 2014 07:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Physics has become so abstract and mathematical that it tempts
philosophers to conclude that mathematics is all there is.
Surely it has been that way since at least Newton's time?
An interesting question is whether a complete
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
And if it isn't correct it doesn't
On 18 November 2014 00:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Aug 2014, at 03:21, LizR wrote:
Alternatively, if a multiverse is necessary, then maybe that shows that
consciousness is a larger phenomenon than is dreamt of, even in Bruno's
philosophy, and we experience only a tiny
According to Wikipaedia...
In mathematical logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic, *Löb's
theorem* states that in a theory with Peano arithmetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic, for any formula *P*, if it
is provable that if *P* is provable then *P* is true, then *P*
Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 16, 2014 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?
The MWI can also be viewed as not positing that any new worlds are
created, but that the multiverse is a continuum
On 18 November 2014 00:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/16/2014 7:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:
marc
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna
circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy, and
we can say that is is virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily shown
self-defeating
The MWI can also be viewed as not positing that any new worlds are created,
but that the multiverse is a continuum that can differentiate between
previously identical worlds, and can continue to do this forever, that
being a property of a continuum.
How does Wiseman (appropriate name!)
Nice post, Bruno.
--
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
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Isn't that the sort of thing religious people often say? They try to use
their language applied to science.
You believe in evolution, I believe in the Bible. What's the difference?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On 15 November 2014 21:30, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15-Nov-2014, at 12:31 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Organised religion in its entirety is a veiled threat.
Temporally, yes, because it is abused by humans against humans. However,
temporal worries and troubles
On 15 November 2014 20:27, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a
closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's head
to understand the mathematics :)
I hope you don't mind answering some
On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.
I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't
matter if the humans on
On 14 November 2014 12:58, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
No Liz, you don't want me to engage with what you say: you want me to
agree with it.
Or disagree politely and sensibly, showing that you have understood what
I've said and giving a clear explanation of why it's wrong.
I make fun of everyone equally, except for myself, who I make more fun of
than others. I don't wish to offend anyone (but I am also suspicious of
religious people who become easily offended, as thought their beliefs are
so fragile they can't stand scrutiny (even in humorous form). However I
don't
On 15 November 2014 11:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible,
True, or so I've been told. I believe the Wheeler-deWitt equation doesn't
include time at all.
The differentiation of the universe is not
It is in principle, otherwise we would
801 - 900 of 3979 matches
Mail list logo
