I do not see the Inflation paradigm as ad-hoc, for it explains the
flatness, Horizon problem and lack of early universe relics better
than any other to date. Now the Big Bang may be replaced by
oscillating solutions from LQG or other theories, but AFAIK they still
need an Inflation period.
I do not know that the ekpyrotic and cyclic models reprodce the
observations better than the BB+inflation.
Yes, no one knows what the inflation field is, but no one has observed
a gluon or single quark either.
I do not know what Penrose's argument is.Without the observable
Universe being in
Bruno
Have you seen this:
V. Walsh, A theory of magnitude:common cortical metrics of time, spce
and quantity, trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483 (2003)
This was a one reference in a paper on time I just read today( Time
and Causation http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0559
Perhaps this paper would be of interest:
Deterministic multivalued logic scheme for information processing and
routing in the brain(arxiv.org/abs/0902.2033)?
Speaking of logic, even though I am not starting from zero,and given
that it is not my full time profession, which papers/book should be
Bruno:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I will take a look at some of the links on Podnieks page.
Ronald
On Feb 26, 11:17 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Feb 2009, at 16:40, ronaldheld
Bruno:
Dur to financial considerations I will wait for the fifth edition
to come out.
On Feb 28, 6:11 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:34, ronaldheld wrote:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I really
Maybe the terminology does not fit here, to make a copy of my brain,
wouldn't you need more than memories, but the state of the brain at
one time to quantum resolution (TNG transporter term).
Ronald
On Feb 23, 9:04 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis
This was mentioned in the TNG technical manual. I do not recall,
right, now, which post TOS episodes mentioned it.
Ronald
On Mar 2, 8:42 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
Not certain what thread this belongs in so I started up a new one.
arxiv.org:0903.1193v1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
I thought I would add the paper:Temporal Platonic
Metaphysics:arxiv.org:0903.18001v1
On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Not certain what thread this belongs in so I started up a new one.
arxiv.org:0903.1193v1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Arxiv.org:0904.0867v1
I think the author presents some good arguments.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
Bruno:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
Ronald
On May 13, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks Russell, I will take a look. At first sight he makes the same
error with numbers that
read Aixiv.org:0905.0624v1 (quant-ph) and see if you agree with it
Ronald
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
wrote:
Ronald,
On 14 May 2009, at 13:19, Ronald (ronaldheld) wrote:
Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can
understand?
UDA *is* the detailed explanation of that physics statement. So it
would be simpler if you could tell me at which step you have a problem
I still do not see any arguments against what I read, that one
Universe fits observations better than the MWI.
Ronald
On May 15, 1:01 am, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
On May 14, 9:47 pm, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
On May 14, 4:45
I would like to branch away temporarily, due to the Star Trek movie.
Is it the case in MWI, that a decision is made in Universe A
(destruction of the Kelvin). Before that event, the Universe, or at
least the causal part of it has a certain physical configuration.
Immediately after that event,
modified paper from Tegmark:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.2182v1.pdf
Ronald
On May 19, 5:41 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to branch away temporarily, due to the Star Trek movie.
Is it the case in MWI, that a decision
Russell:
Maybe you might be interested in gfortran(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/
GFortran)?
Ronald
On Jun 2, 6:38 pm, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Since I program
Bruno:
I understand a little better. is there a citition for a version of
Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
FORTRAN?
Ronald
On Jun 4, 10:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Ronald,
On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
, ronaldheld wrote:
I am following, but have not commented, because there is nothing
controversal.
Cool. Even the sixth first steps of UDA?
When you are done, can your posts be consolidated into a paper or a
document that can be read staright through?
I should do that.
Bruno
As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
something else?
Ronald
On Aug 6, 10:23 pm, Brent
I am behind, because I was away delivering Science talk to Star Trek
fans.
I am uncertain what to take away from this thread, and could use the
clarification.
As an aside, I read(or tried to) read the SANE paper on the plane.
Ronald
On Aug 10, 11:24
I think I have at least two problems, not necessarily well formulated.
I accept that there are concepts(mathematical) that are not necessrily
part of the physical Universe(Multiverse). I do not see that there are
only the abstractions.
Also, Bruno mentions QM, as being included in COMP. QM is an
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 from this group, send
Bruno:
I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases
. Ronald
On Aug 18, 2:58 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 16:23, ronaldheld wrote:
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
Very
Bruno:
the Plotinus paper is the first one on your list of publications on
your website?
Ronald
On Aug 18, 10:46 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Ronald,
On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:14, ronaldheld wrote:
I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do
arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
into 'machine-consciousness' etc.
ideas.
John M
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text
I thought that I would start a thread to consolidate some of the books
useful in following current and old threads. if people alos want to
post key papers here, I do not see a problem with that.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
a problem to find them, or if you search for other
books. Logicians like to write book, and there are many of them.
Original papers on the UDA and AUDA can be found on my web pages
(http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
).
Bruno
On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:48, ronaldheld wrote:
I thought
suggestion, for serious studies, is:
1) Mendelson
2) Boolos 1979
Bruno
On 18 Sep 2009, at 15:14, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
It sounds as if the way to begin is with the latest Mendelson book.
Ronald
On Sep 18, 2:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc
Bruno and others, here is how a Star Trek transporter work(taken from
Memory Alpha):
A typical transport sequence began with a coordinate lock, during
which the destination was verified and programmed, via the targeting
scanners. Obtaining or maintaining a transporter lock enables the
in TOS: the enemy within On stardate 1672.1, in 2266, a strange ore
had altered the function of the transporter, causing one of the most
bizarre transporter accidents on record, in which Captain James T.
Kirk was split into two separate entities. No mention of where the
extra matter came from.
in
My book has arrived. Perhaps in several months, I will be able to
follow the symbolic arguments better?
Ronald
On Sep 19, 5:38 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Bruno. Mendelson is on its way to me.
Ronald
On Sep 18
Bruno:
It will take quite a while for Mendelson, so I may ask again when I
am finished or want to start something new.
Ronald
On Sep 29, 12:47 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Sep 2009, at 21:51, ronaldheld wrote
Arxiv:0910.1589v1
Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 from this group, send
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.4824v1.pdf
Can someone read this and explain any relevance it may have?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
to think that real numbers (standard or not) are really
construction of the mind (of the universal machine), like comp invites
to consider (with Occam).
Best,
Bruno
On 30 Nov 2009, at 19:18, ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.4824v1.pdf
Can someone read
Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:
Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf
He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse
view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that
setting
I should have added this in the previous post. it is an article about
time from a different perspective.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1604v1.pdf
Ronald
On Dec 10, 1:01 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
any comments on this?
Ronald
--
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 unsubscribe from
.
John M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.comwrote:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
any comments on this?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
Bruno:
Is there a UD that is implemented in Fortran?
Ronald
On Dec 29, 4:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:24, Nick Prince wrote:
Well, it is better to assume just the axiom of, say, Robinson
arithmetic. You assume 0, the
Bruno:
yes that is unfortunately true.
Ronald
On Dec 30, 10:25 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2009, at 03:29, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Is there a UD that is implemented in Fortran?
I don't know. If you know Fortran, it should
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5367.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.5434v1.pdf
I am more interested in comments on the second one.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Bruno:
is there a free version of Theoretical computer science and the
natural
sciences?
Ronald
On Feb 4, 2:45 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2010, at 15:28, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal
comments on this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.0148v1.pdf
Ronald
--
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 unsubscribe
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.0960v1.pdf
Comments?
Ronald
--
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 unsubscribe from
Sizing Up Consciousness by Its BitsBy CARL ZIMMER
One day in 2007, Dr. Giulio Tononi lay on a hospital stretcher as an
anesthesiologist prepared him for surgery. For Dr. Tononi, it was a
moment of intellectual exhilaration. He is a distinguished chair in
consciousness science at the University of
Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based on Tegmark's work. I
would like to give an updated talk with other POVs within 40 minutes.
Any suggestions, considering the Trek fan audience, would be
appreciated.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you
of the next generation is relevant:
Q: That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and
studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of
existence.
Jason
On Nov 5, 3:42 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based
, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:39 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
Do you want to add more? I know Q meant that mental exploration was
more important than the physical
.Ronald
On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, Jason jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronald
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
Ronald
On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh
Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I answer Bruno.
Ronald
On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV
kind of
objections did people raise? Perhaps that would help us formulate a line of
reasoning which would be more effective.
Jason
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:15 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205092v8.pdf
Bruno(and anyone else)
Ronald
--
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
similar to a Holodeck, where the person is a
Holocharacter? I am not certain a UD is physically possible in a
finite resource Universe.
Ronald
On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV Universe
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Dec 2010, at 19:00, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno(and others)
I am going to do this in two posts. The first is my interpretation
of your UDA. Since the Brain is a Turing emulatable program running on
a biological platform(to start), steps 1-5 are not controversal. Step
Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Dec 2010, at 01:01, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
I stand corrected on steps 6 and 7. I believe I understand your UDA
diagrams.
OK. Thanks for saying.
Before I can comment, I need to decide waht progrmas are and
are not Turing emulatable,
All programs
realistically be simulated. On this Bruno has said, if you don't
believe the neuron requires an infinite amount of information to decide
whether or not to fire, then you are a mechanist.
Jason
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:13 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno:
Thanks
:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity
at 8:05 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno and Jason
The complexity issue concerns me, perhaps because of the Deep space
9 episode:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
Ronald
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.3765v1.pdf
I saw this and thought, Bruno.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Bruno:
Behind in this group. I think that if you had a this Universe and
replace the particles with its antiparticles.there should be no
difference from the human observer POV.
Ronald
On Dec 20, 4:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Dec 2010, at 18:29, ronaldheld wrote
Bruno:
Given what I know about the laws of Physics. A matter human in a
matter Universe(similar to ours) is Consciousness and self aware. An
antimatter human in an antimatter Universe should be expected to be
Consciousness and self aware.
I do not understand the second to last paragraph. One
maybe this will help?
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
arXiv:1210.1847v1 [hep-ph] 4Oct 2012
Ronald
On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2012, at
arxiv:1207.4520
is there any meaning to this?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kt7-xm6P4VoJ.
To post to this group,
If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no
problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
arXiv:1208.0493v1 [quant-ph]
anything useful here?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/o8kakXvUvOIJ.
To post to this
Bruno, I have read several over the years but do not save them. Here is the
latest one that I read:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1599
Ronald
Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:37:52 PM UTC-4, ronaldheld wrote:
Assuming chaotic inflation there is no consensus
Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying
this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc?
Ronald
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King
Thanks for all of the suggestions, past and future.
I will be reading the paper by Guariga and Vilenkin
In this case finding the correct level to present at is about as
difficult as compuring certain measures.I tend to be at a higher level
than most of the audience can easily understand, but in
Can someone construct an example I can understand, to compute the
nearest distance to a Level I duplicate? Perhaps all of the ones I
have read are too coarse estimates?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or
Level III?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
I would think that Star Trek is Level I, and that Level III adds
nothing.
The comment that Q(and maybe The Prophets) comes from a Level IV is
something I may be able to use if he knows how to change our physical
low energy laws to anything that is possible(and suits his current
needs).
Of course,
This is going to be crude, but if I understand what Bruno( and others)
are saying, there is no Physics or physical universe. There is a (are)
large computer program(s) running, some segment of which exhibits
consciousness? Does that crudely imply that everything I sense could
be considered a
Bruno:
We may be talking different thing but the TOE for Physics does not
exist yet. I would think it would be QM and General Relativity and
other things we do not know.
Could this program be running an evolving mathematical structure
or maybe you prefer evolving block universe/multiverse?
Bruno:
I am aware of Everett's many worlds universe, which is predicted on
the wavefunction not collapsing. So far, that seems to be
experientally so.
Not many Physicists take consciousness into account, althought there
is a paper I just found today you may be interested in:http://
Bruno:
I am uncertain that this was answered.
You are starting with mathematics, and going to some Multiversal
computation program? If there is no physical universe, what does the
computer run on? With no energy, how are your thoughts being
generated?
Bruno:
I may have missed something in the last two days.
I still do not understand. You say this starts with the real world,
which to me is the physical universe/Multiverse, but it actually
starts with arithmetic. How is there any mathematics with nothing to
conceive of it? What are the
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
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
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2422.pdf
--
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 from this group, send email to
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1612v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
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
I see you beat me to posting this.
Ronald
On Mar 1, 12:55 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.5339v1.pdf
CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE
QUANTUM
Don N. Page
Theoretical Physics Institute
Department of Physics,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0005v1.pdf.
Bruno may be interested in this one.
Ronald
--
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 from
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1651v1.pdf
Here we go again.
Ronald
--
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
Are you talking about a Star Trek term or for certain space-times,
the ability to go forwards or backwards in time relative to a distant
observer?
Ronald
On May 16, 3:31 pm, selva selvakr1...@gmail.com wrote:
hi everyone,
can someone explain me what a time warp is ? or why there is a time
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.3796v1.pdf.
I am curious what people think of this, not just from the DM Point of
view.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.4278.pdf
They mentioned Tegmark's Level IV multiverse so I thought i would post
the link here.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
Bruno:
I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran?
Ronald
On Jul 18, 5:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The interior
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Jul 2011, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/19/2011 11:32 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
Given limited resources and for only 1 program, it does not seem
logical to learn LISP. Are there Windows or DOS executables of the
UD?
FWIW. I use MAPLE and not Mathematica
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1107/1107.4028.pdf
Sorry about my title choice. Any comments?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
I believe Bruno said this. Could whomever did say that expand upon the
phrase?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.4175v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
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
article copy from Arxiv.org
Ronald
‘Beyond quantum theory: a realist psycho-biological
interpretation of reality’ revisited
Brian D. Josephson
Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
Abstract
It is hypothesised, following Conrad et al. (1988) that
I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
I have just started to read it.,
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Not certain if this goes here
What about Data from TNG? He could pass the Turing test, and with his
emotion chip on, act like many huminoids. Is he intelligent,
conscious, self aware, etc?
Ronald
On Jan 23, 5:38 pm, Craig Weinberg
Since there was a thread on Turing:arXiv:1201.4504v1 [math.LO]
Here is the abstract:
We discuss historical attempts to formulate a physical hypothesis from
which Turing’s thesis may be derived, and also discuss some related
at-
tempts to establish the computability of mathematical models in
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
