.
- Original Message -
From: scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: objections to QTI
Norman Samish wrote:
This scenario that you are discussing reminds me of this interview with
Julian Barbour
Hal,
Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark
McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is
caused by the expansion of atoms.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June
Hal,
I agree. It seems clear to me that the urge of nature to increase the
entropy of the universe is the engine behind everything we see happening,
including life and evolution. Why did life occur? Why, to increase the
entropy of the universe!
How did life occur? Well, you mix some
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A quantum
fluctuation of virtual particles I'm told.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Whoever told you that was passing off speculation as fact--in fact there
is no agreed-upon answer to the question of what
Norman Samish wrote:
If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller,
which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an
argument in support of perpetual expansion.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
From what I've read, if the universe began
Jonathan Colvin wrote: If I take a loaf of bread, chop it half, put one
half in one room and one half in the other, and then ask the question where
is the loaf of bread?, we can likely agree that the question is ill-posed.
Depending on definitions, this may indeed be an ill-posed question. On
trap. The identity of the empty trap would
presumably be unpredictable.
Is my guess correct?
I don't dispute this, but you are certainly correct when you say This may
sound ridiculous. . . This vividly demonstrates quantum weirdness.
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
Patrick Leahy
I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid
making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then
all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message -
From: rmiller [EMAIL
quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then
all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy.
Norman Samish
You can't *specifically* copy a quantum state, but you can create
systems in *every possible* quantum state (of a finite size), hence you
can make an ensemble which contains
Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there
will always be at least one version of you who will definitely
Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say if you believe that
everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need
NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was
not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time?
Brent Meeker
NOT NECESSITATE *Occurance*.
It merely allows the *possibility*.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: Have all possible events occurred?
Stathis Papaioannou
Dr. Raj Baldev has explained the history of over 1 trillion 250,000 billion
years before the Big Bang. . . Read more at
http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=641
Lee, Stephen, Stathis, Jonathan,
Thanks for your illuminating responses.
I went to http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=641 and left a
message telling them that I objected to the slur on Hawking, and that I
thought Dr. Baldev was a charlatan. I also rated the article as Bad, the
of
materials and manufacturing technologies.
Charlatan, maybe...
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: How did he get his information?
Lee, Stephen, Stathis, Jonathan,
Thanks
Bruno, Stathis et al,
What you say is clearly true. It's as though expertise in one field
convinces some people, often those in charge surrounded by sycophants, that
anything they say must be true. This is deplorable because these aberrant
statements undermine all the true statements
http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.AO/0506030 shows the following abstract,
suggesting that complex computations are not precisely repeatable. Doesn't
Bruno's Computation Hypothesis imply that computations ARE precisely
repeatable?
Modern computer microprocessors are composed of hundreds of millions
. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy
is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the
supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the
discovery.
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
From
Bruno,
You speak of God. Could you define what you, as a logician, mean?
Thanks,
Norman
~~
An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that
physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e
asyness comes from
Bruno,
I don't know what you mean by this comment. Could you please go into
more detail? I realize this is speculation, nevertheless I'd like to know
what your speculation is. Thanks,
Norman Samish
~~~
- Original Message -
From
This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable Mention?
Who is Godfrey?
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:14 AM
Subject: How did it all begin?
surely wasn't heard about it..
As to whom am I? Still trying to find out...
Regards,
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
~~
-Original Message-
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue
that it is Eternal, without beginning or end.
IMHO, Tegmark's paper, like the rest of his papers, is not worth reading
if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform thoughts.
Onward!
Stephen
~~
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL
Hi Saibal,
While my simple mind believes that mathematical existence = physical
existence, I do not assume that we owe our existence to the mere existence
of the algorithm, not a machine that executes it.
To me, the reason that mathematical existence means physical existence
is that in
or infinite speed, maybe
it could, in principle, simulate the universe. However, this isn't
possible. Does this mean that the Church Thesis, hence computationalism,
is, in reality, false?
Norman Samish
ates Turing Machine
X.
But seriously, folks, I'm not
mockinganybody who reads this list.You people have taught me a
lot, and my over-taxed brain is full of sore muscles. I'm grateful, if
annoyed I can't understand it with less effort.
Norman
~~~~~~~- Ori
and over
again. How strange and pointless it all seems.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Norman Samish writes:
If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that
can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will
continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe
has been played in the past
Stathis,
Yes, it is frightening, especially since (I think) I am an engineer,
married with adult children, own the house you are living in and the car in
the driveway, and so on.
That is a vivid description.
But even as I am being hauled away to the psychiatric ward, can I not
logically
I realize that there are unsolved problems in quantum mechanics that can be
solved by adding dimensions, whether spatial or time. I also know that
added dimensions are describable mathematically, and that some (Tegmark)
hold that this makes them real. However, as Jonathan points out with
for many would be intolerable.
If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a
zero. If there is a God, there is an after life and they get
infinity. So how can they lose?Maybe Pascal's
Wagerdeserves more consideration.
Norman Samish
~~
- Original Message -
From
Even though I don't think that personal gods exist, there
arebenefits to having faith that they do. As Kevin Ryan said, there
is comfort in submission.
Norman
~
- Original Message -----
From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Norman Samish" [EMAIL PROTEC
Hi Danny,
Thanks for your interesting comments. I've responded
below.
Norman
Norman
Samish wrote:
Hi John,
Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how
ridiculous the concept is.
Actually, with all due respect to John, I failed to s
- Original Message -
From: "Quentin Anciaux" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi Norman, Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman
Samish a écrit : (NS) I don't deny that a futur
Bruno,
Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say
my argument is not valid. Granted,much of what you write is
unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know
little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've
said so far:
(Norman ONE)
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that nothing was
describable - because, if it was, it would not be nothing. I don't think
of nothing as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of a
bitstring - as no thing.
Given that
Gentlemen:
George Levy's moral is correct.
George's encounter with his wife reminds me of a similar
encounter with my wife.
I told her, "Some people feel that there is something rather
than nothing because everything can be represented by strings of numbers, and
numbers must exist. Do
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question
has bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made
towards an answer.
I've heard some interesting concepts, including:
(1) "Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must
exist."
(2) "Something exists because
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:"Another note about
numbering. It seems to be that if you repeatedly make descriptions of
descriptions, you eventually end up with all 0's or all 1's, showing that
numbers describing numbers is meaningless. Does this also prove
that numbers do not have a
(Norman Samish)I don't see how a list
of numbers could, by itself, contain anymeaningful information.
Sure, a list of numbers could be an executable program,but there has to be
an executive program to execute the executableprogram. The
multiverse has to therefore consist of more than
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
"Hal Finney" wrote: The first is that numbers are
really far more complex than they seem. When we think of numbers, we
tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7. But they are not really
typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to the integers,
the
way of putting the UDA.
Cheers
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0800, Norman Samish wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hal Finney wrote:
The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem.
When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7
Vic Stenger's site at http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/index.html
has much well-presented information and speculation. Thanks for the
reference.
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You would like this book by Vic Stenger:
http
nd a few others, are clearly Homo Superior, while the rest
of us are mere Homo Sapiens."
You will then say, "Our discourse is meant for Homo
Superior. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen."
I'll reply, "Damn! I was hoping t
sense to me, andI do not
acceptthis quote from a recent book: "
human
cognition is too rich to be simulated by computer programs" (Horgan and Tienson 1996, p. 1).
Thanks again for your offer, but I do not want you to
spend your valuable time attempting to get blood
Interesting notion. I recently read a science
fiction story set in the distant future where people could be replicated at
will. In the story, it was not uncommon to meet one's clone. The
cloneswere treated as separate individuals- perhaps analogous to how
identical twins are treated in our
We can all agree, I think, that many among us humans are irrational. What's
more, many are obsessed with killing others who don't agree with them. The
Conquistadors who killed the Aztecs and Incas because God wished it so and
the radical Muslims who kill the infidels because God wishes it so
Hi Brent,
You say, "They (the Spanish)subjugated the Aztecs
and Inca for king and gold. European disease may have killed a lot
ofthem, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors -
though they were certainlyrevolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the
Aztecs."I am
o perusing it.
I bought the PDF version from http://www.booksurge.comand they allowed an
immediate download.
Thanks and best wishes,
Norman Samish
I'm pleased to announce that my book "Theory of Nothing" is
now for sale through Booksurge and Amazon.com. If you
John, you can download a freelittle program at http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm that
strips all those things from any file you feed it. If the
"" characters bother you, give it a try.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be
a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
computer in action.
Norman Samish
~
- Original
is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without
computational assistance?
Norman
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote
Hi WC,
I look forward to seeing your math formulas/theorems etc. supporting the
Perfect Universe.
Your Perfect Universe sounds like the heaven that many true believers
aspire to. There can apparently be as many Heavens as there are Believers,
since each believer is free to define the
we inhabit may be a
quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to
include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these
S.C. is alive; in half it is dead.
Norman Samish
~~~`
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL
s and
listen.Norman~~- Original
Message - From: "1Z" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Everything
List" everything-list@googlegroups.comSent: Sunday, August 06, 2006
11:06 AMSubject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: Thanks - with your help
things appear to me - and I might be wrong.
Norman Samish
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe f
something that behaves quantum
mechanically."
Thank you, Colin Hales. I believe yourremarks apply to any
theory. Theories are descriptions of what we think reality may be - they
are not reality.
Norman Samish
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message becau
Serafino,
I regret that I am unable to answer your
question - perhaps another list member will volunteer his opinion.
Norman
~
- Original Message -
From: "scerir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject:
Brent,
That's an interesting explanation of a zero-information
universe, which you suggest is implicit in the MWI of QM - yet (like me) you
don't necessarily buy MWI.In your view, are there other explanations
for quantum mysteries that are more credible?
Norman Samish
Brent: ". . . It seems to me that an information
theoretic analysis should be able to place a lower bound on how small a
probability can be and not be zero."
Norman: Doesn't a lower limit on probability repudiate the
notion of Tegmark, Vilenkin, et al, that there are necessarily duplicate
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
That's right, but with a fixed input the computer follows a perfectly
deterministic course, like a clockwork mechanism, however many times we
repeat the run. Moreover, if we consider the recording of the input as
hardwired into the computer, it does not interact
Stathis,
According to Wikipedia, "Platonia" is a tree. That isn't
what you mean. Could you furnish a definition? Thank
you,
Norman Samish ~~~- Original
Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . . Computatio
Thanks to all who replied. Thanks to your instruction, it now is clear
to me that, in an infinite series of random characters, every
conceivable sequence MUST occur. These sequences must, of course, obey
the requirement that all random characters in an infinite sequence must
appear an equal
Welcome,
I've been looking for an idiot savant to answer
this question: Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp. This
isan ideal lamp, capable of infinite switching speed and using electricity
that travels at infinite speed. At time zero it is on.After
one minute it is turned off. After 1/2
Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp. This is an ideal lamp, capable of
infinite switching speed and using electricity that travels at infinite
speed. At time zero it is on. After one minute it is turned off. After
1/2 minute it is turned back on. After 1/4 minute it is turned off. And so
To repeat Tegmark's rhetorical question (and he's probably not the
originator), If the multiverse is finite, what's outside it's edge?
Norman
- Original Message -
From: Mirai Shounen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Federico Marulli [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30,
I agree with Eric Hawthorne. Much of what's said here is unintelligible to
me. I think that most of the contributors to this list are outstanding
intellects that want to enlighten, not obfuscate, and have some fascinating
ideas. I'd like to be able to decipher what you're saying.
Norman
-
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.
I'm told that non-locality is a phenomenon that is proven. A review of
experiments makes it clear that spooky action at a distance is part of
nature. But
Does this question have an answer? I think the question shows there is a
limit to our understanding of things and is unanswerable. Does anybody
disagree?
Norman
Hal Finney,
Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing
by using Descartes reasoning. (From
http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) The only
thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt
that thought was not a
Gentlemen,
Thanks for the opinions. Youhave
convinced me thatat leastthe empty set MUST exist, and "The whole of
mathematics can, in principle, be derived from the properties of the empty set,
Ø."(From http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilf01.htm.)
"In the Universe as a whole, the conserved
Doug Porpora,
You have some interesting ideas. For example, a probability so close
to zero it takes infinite chances for the event to be expected even once.
My understanding of the properties of infinity is that this cannot be true -
in an infinite set, anything that can occur, even at the
into
realms that cannot be comprehended, at least not by me.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: Martin Keitel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Porpora
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:39 AM
Subject
Your conclusion that there is no scientific justification for morals of any
sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense depends on the definition of
scientific. Without morals an argument could be made that mankind would
not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is scientific
Why Occam's Razor can be viewed at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/
The abstract:
Ensemble theories have received a lot of interest recently as a means of
explaining a lot of the detailed complexity observed in reality by a vastly
simpler description ``every possibility exists''
have not posted this to the list as you only posted your question to me;
if you think this reply would be of interest to the list, please feel free
to forward it.
Stathis Papaioannou
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Math Problem
Date: Wed
Perhaps mathematics, which is digital, is incapable of precise simulation of
reality, which is not digital.
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Omega Point theory and time
likely to win or lose, you win money in the
long run.
I am going to sleep... :)
Eric.
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 17:52, Kory Heath wrote:
At 12:20 AM 10/11/2004, Norman Samish wrote:
For example, if there are 3 players then the long-term odds are that each
game costs each player 25 cents
Hal,
I'm way out of my depth, but if I'm correctly interpreting what you are
saying, it looks to me that your multiverse model cannot be valid.
This is because it answers the question Why does anything exist? with the
answer Because it's not possible to conceive of Nothing, since the concept
Hal,
With reference to your inconsistent TOE model (which I do not claim to
understand), you state My approach solves these issues for ME . . . You
also state All universes over and over is in my belief system more
satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as self aware
, is that we so far do not know what
can happen.
Why does infinite space-time exist? Perhaps because it must - what
alternative could there be?
Norman Samish
.
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 8:21 AM
, which clearly I have no
control over?
Norman Samish
predictable.
To be free of complete predictability, at least some of the SAO's actions
must ultimately depend on some kind of random event. At the most
fundamental level, this must be quantum indeterminacy.
Norman Samish
~~~
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED
then how could there be free will?
Everything would be pre-ordained.
But, as Heisenberg shows us, the future cannot be predicted. Unpredictable
choices are made by SAO's, therefore free will exists.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message -
From
that this is
incorrect. Can you show why it is incorrect? Thanks,
Norman Samish
Mark,
What does happening right now mean in the MWI concept? Einstein showed
that there is no universal right now. Are you confusing this with a
saying that I've seen attributed to C. A. Pickover, in his book Keys to
Infinity? It goes In infinite time and infinite space, whatever can
If the multiverse is truly infinite in space-time, then all possible
universes must eventually appear in it, including an infinite number with
all 10^80 particles in it identical to those in our universe.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message
which I may have introduced by my editing.)
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In
Lee Corbin points to
Tipler's March 2005 paper
like to hear them. I wonder if
your opinion will be that no opinion is possible?
Norman Samish
~`
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May
Hi Jonathan,
You say that if something and nothing are equivalent, then the big WHY
question is rendered meaningless.
But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking WHY does the integer
series -100 to +100 exist? Even though the sum of the integer series is
zero, that doesn't render the
Hi Jonathan,
You say that Because it is necessarily true is the answer to Why does the
integer series -100 to +100 exist? However, you seem to say that this is
NOT the answer to Why does anything exist? In this latter case, you seem
to say the question is meaningless because the sum of
? That is not an explanation of
existence.
Obviously, we don't know THE answer - do you (or anybody) think there CAN be
an answer that does not require supernatural intervention? What might it
be?
My wife says the answer is Because.
Norman Samish
- Original
that there is a necessitate
prior to which Existence is dependent upon.
Norman Samish
~~
Stephen Paul King writes:
Existence, itself, can not be said to require an explanation for such would
be a requirement that there is a necessitate prior to which Existence is
dependent upon
Hi Saibal and Stathis,
This scenariothat you are discussing
reminds me of this interview with Julian Barbour where he proposes that "time"
is an illusion. If you agree or disagree with Barbour,I'd like to
hear why.
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=1
of the multiverse, humans did self-destruct
(and may do so in this one).
4) In my personal history, there are several close calls where I could
easily have been killed. In some branches of the multiverse I was, in fact,
killed. In this branch I survive.
Norman Samish
- Original Message
such a small variation. Genetic
evidence suggests only 1,000 adults survived world wide. May be event which
caused rise in modern racial differences - Professor Stanley Ambrose of the
University of Illinois. This article suggests that near-extinction of
humans did occur.
Norman Samish
. Yet if
I'm asked to provide answers, these are the only ones I can offer. I think
they all qualify as marvelous circumstances.
Norman Samish
~~
(Norman writes) However, the part that I have trouble with is figuring
out exactly how that first living organism
97 matches
Mail list logo
