- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
>Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Günther Greindl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
> Dear Nichomachus,
>
>> decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
>> elect to switc
Apologies - still some technical problem (it worked when I tested it out). If
anyone's interested in the ref it's best to edit the URL line or retype.
- Original Message -
From: Alastair Malcolm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject:
One of my references did not 'HTMLize' properly for some reason. This one
should:
www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm
- Original Message -
From: Alastair Malcolm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: 'White Rabbit&#x
ww.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm (which enlarges on the 'compressed'
objective reality that corresponds to the more compressed representations), and
www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pb01.htm (a more general and informal read).
(Comments welcome - particularly if any problems are spotted in the
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
>
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:50PM +0100, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:45PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
>> >> A final brief point in an attempt to help clarify matters. The failure
>> >> of
>> >> induction proble
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 04:19:44PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
.
.
.
>> >> If one takes the description string x (up to
>> >> some finite limit) as (minimally) representing
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
>>
>> Comparing identical OM's/OM sequences, it seems to me that I am most
>> likely
>> to be ['in'] that se
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:56 AM
Subject: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
.
.
.
>>
>> (There appears to be a subsidiary issue of 'many description
>> strings to one OM' (what you seem to
Title: Message
Quite often, when several of us talk about 'descriptions' and
'specifications' in relation to measure (or relative measure) of worlds, we are
also implicitly or explicitly referring to a corresponding underlying ontology
(so the world would not 'really' be made of 'concrete chu
- Original Message -
From: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Everything-List
Sent: 27 May 2005 09:52
Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
.
.
> But I agree that going any further with particular predictions,
particularly
>
- Original Message -
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 27 May 2005 19:19
Subject: RE: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
.
.
> To summarize, logic is not a property of universes. It is a tool that
> our minds use to understand the world, including possible universes.
> We may fail to
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Everything-List
Sent: 26 May 2005 19:54
Subject: RE: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
.
.
.
> * But the arbitrariness of the measure itself becomes the main argument
> against the everything thesi
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: EverythingList
Sent: 26 May 2005 11:20
Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> > An example occurs whi
> - Original Message -
> From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: EverythingList
> Sent: 24 May 2005 22:10
> Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
> .
>[Patrick:]
> > This is very reminiscent of Lew
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: EverythingList
Sent: 24 May 2005 22:10
Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
.
.
> This is very reminiscent of Lewis' argument. Have you read his book? IIRC
> h
Perhaps I can throw in a few thoughts here, partly in the hope I may learn
something from possible replies (or lack thereof!).
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 23 May 2005 00:03
.
.
> A very similar argument ("rubbish universes") was put forward long ago
>
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: 11 January 2005 14:47
Subject: Re: Belief Statements
> I certainly agree. Now the problem is that there are many logics, and so
> there are many notion or &q
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 09 January 2005 19:28
Subject: Re: Belief Statements
> I can't conceive of space-time being anything other than infinite. The
> existence of "all logically possible worlds" seems necessary in infinite
> space-time, whe
- Original Message -
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 09 January 2005 16:21
Subject: Re: Belief Statements
> Alastair Malcolm writes:
> > For my own part, I give strong credibility (>50%) to the existence of
many
> > worlds in some guise
This is a fascinating discussion list, full of stimulating ideas and
theories, but I would be interested to know what people *actually* believe
on the subject of many/all worlds - what one would bet one's house or life
on, given that one were forced to choose some such bet.
For my own part, I give
of minimal
complexity compatible with SAS's is unlikely to be teeming with them.
Related details in the first URL mentioned below, section 2h.
Alastair Malcolm
http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pb01.htm
For participation in discussions on the fundamental problem of existence:
http://www.afproject.org.
://www.afproject.org.
Alastair Malcolm
(Personal emails to a.malcolmATphysica.freeserve.co.uk, replacing the AT)
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
> The answer I prefer is to say that the Nothing and the E
Everythingers who are interested in a 'reality check' on some of their ideas
or in their philosophical underpinnings, might wish to check out the Agreed
Fundamentals Project: proposed explanations for our world are carefully
scrutinized according to disciplined rational criteria, all under focussi
You now appear to be talking about the indeterminate case (where effectively
you can't fire individual random arrows), which is excluded on empirical
grounds (see sect. 2 again). I repeat, the selective use of copies as given
in the paper - *within* the context of states, and where relative
freque
[I think the principle of the following comment also applies to your other
post.]
It is the x-coordinate that determines the state, in our analogy. Are you
really saying that randomly shooting arrows into *any* finite segment (and
therefore *all* finite segments) of your infinite tape will yield
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 2/21/02, [ I ] wrote:
> >If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that
> >imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you
> >are also saying that random selections from all the re
If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that
imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you
are also saying that random selections from all the reals between -1 and +10
do not converge towards a ratio of 10:1 for positive to negative values - I
c
The condition given at the start of the appendix is of one copy per
(logically possible) unit combination. Section 2 of the paper deals with
the various possible cases of copies.
Alastair
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 20 February 20
The intended implication is that the minimally represented versions of
universes will predominate for all possible values of m (above n+d). Sorry
if that wasn't clear.
- Original Message -
From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 19 February 2002 04:50
Subject: Re:
Thanks for your comments - the 'difficulty' that you refer to is none other
than the White Rabbit problem, on which there has been much discussion in
this forum. My own approach addresses the problem from the standpoint of all
logical possibilities (rather than any particular model or set of rules
I have pasted below the abstract of a draft philosophy paper I have just
completed, which may be of interest. The paper is at
http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm
Comments/corrections welcome.
Alastair
Plausibility of the Existence of all Possible States
The argument for the existence
ity, where n is the relevant
string/description length (see appendix below). It seems to me that in
thinking in simple infinity terms one can lose essential information (for
example integers cannot be determined to be more numerous than the odd
numbers - both are of the lowest order of infinity - not a
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've just finished reading "Extraterrestrials: Where are they?" by
> Zuckerman and Hart. It really scotches the idea that SETI might
> actually be successful, even though the Fermi paradox is a bit
> overdone "Any ET civilisation of substantial duratio
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 13 May 2000 19:42
Subject: Re: this very moment
> On 13-May-00, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> >> In any case our reason for supposing the world to be law like is
already
- Original Message -
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 13 May 2000 20:35
Subject: Re: this very moment
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sat, 13 May 2000, Alastair Malco
- Original Message -
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Others will have to speak for themselves, but for my part I give reasons why
I consider that an AUH (ie more-or-less a plenitude) is the only
substantially reasonable explanation for our world in
http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/p101.htm
and subsequent links. I don't mind discussing other possib
- Original Message -
From: Fred Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here is the first interesting point. I haven't finished rereading
> Russell's
> Occam Razor paper to my complete understanding, but from what I
> understand
> Russell argues that mathematically QM gives the greatest measure for
> S
- Original Message -
From: Fritz Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > As I said, the measure problems are the same whether you use MW or my
> > > single observer moment theory.
> >
> >If by 'measure problem' it is meant that the WAP on its own predicts
'chaos
> >to the brink' (because our m
- Original Message -
From: Fritz Griffith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Maloney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [AM:] Under AUH, unfortunately it is neither *necessary* for a SAS to
perceive
> > totally law-like behaviour, nor try to fit all observed behaviour to
laws.
> > Firstly, there will be a relatively few unlucky SAS's wh
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My much hyped paper is now available for review and criticism
> (hopefully constructive). The URLs are
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/ps/occam.ps.gz or
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/ depending
Pending the arrival of a much talked about faq, your best bet is probably to
do a search for the first occurence of such terms in the archive at
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory
Alastair
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Lias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jacques M. Mallah <[EMAIL PROTECT
'Everythingers' might just be interested in part of a web site
which I have recently extended to include some information on all possible
universes hypotheses. It is aimed at a general audience, so may read a little
simplistically in places for many on this list, but I hope to find the time
- Original Message -
From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Alastair Malcolm' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 06 July 1999 11:10
Subject: RE: Devil's advocate against Max Tegmark's hypothesis
> Can you provide any evidenc
49 matches
Mail list logo
