Greetings
Well, it's of course always *possible* that what we see
cannot really be explained by current knowledge. Even
Galileo must have wondered if yet further laws were
really governing his falling objects, laws beyond
d = (1/2)t^2 and g = at. (He would have been right to
wonder, of course,
Of potential interest:
News
Dramatic differences found in matter and antimatter (Aug 3)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/8/1
The international BaBar collaboration working at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) in the US has found the most dramatic evidence
to date for
Oops, I too was a victim of viral paranoia this AM and committed wholesale
deletion of all attachment laden emails in my box including, apparently,
Russel's. letter. Can someone send or forward me a copy? (of the letter not
a virus) ;)
Thanks!
Please, Russell,
for the peace of our minds who
!
CMR- insert gratuitous quotation
that implies my profundity here -
to a "halt"? I suppose if the
decrepit computerremained structurally complex enough to be potentially
universal (Wolfram hassuggested "a bucket of rustynails" is, for
instance!?!) than it could (would?) eventually re-self-organize and start
running a new "routine".
Cheers
CMR- insert gratuitous quotation that
implies my profundity here -
the proposition that the number seventeen is prime. (I want just be
sure I
understand your own philosophical hypothesis).
CMR
- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here -
realist? You tell me..
Cheers
CMR
- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here -
or as good as same, then they are charlatans in deed
as well as name, IMHO.
Cheers
CMR
- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here -
Science.
I am in your corner, however I spoke about
the "official" terror of science establishment, the editors, tenure-professors,
Nobel people, etc. control freaks. This type of science is perfectly
described in today's post of CMR in his points, identifying "reduct
should've taken his Newton with a grain of salt?). Monads not only don't
"wake up" "outside" the(this) unverse, they have no meaning in isolation from
it(them), IMHO. (Guess I'm indeed nota Platonist)
Cheers
CMR- insert gratuitous quote that implies
my profundity here -
News
SLAC sees parity violation in electrons (May 13)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/5/7
Physicists in the US have observed parity violation in collisions
between electrons for the first time. The results, which are in
agreement with the Standard Model of particle physics,
empirical data*.
Cheers
CMR
-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here --
I'd love to take credit for George's arguments (he
probablyknows morethan me, after all) but that wouldn't be ethical
(andI don't think we want to revisit THAT thread!)
cheers!
Dear George,
Interleaving.
[CMR]
It seems to me that if two worlds are indistinguishable from
to be so.
Cheers,
CMR
-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here --
February 2004
The complete NKS book is now available online, with full text,
images, 30,000+ links and more...
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline
--
News
Physicists attack cosmological model (Feb 6)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/2/4
Many astronomers believe that the universe is dominated by cold 'dark
matter' and 'dark energy' - a view that
hope that they're doing a better job of running things than us. It
wouldn't be hard, I imagine.
Charlton Heston: You maniacs!... You blew it up!... Ah, da(r)n you!...
Go(sh) da(r)n you all to he(ck)!! (Planet of the Apes, 1968)
Peace
CMR
-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity
heritage with bonobo chimps. Many researchers
credit our cousins with primitive language capacity, tool usage, and even
self-awareness. I doubt, though, that many would find interpreting chimp
behavior in the context of fitness to be un-orthodox in anyway. Indeed it is
the norm.
Cheers
CMR
heritage with bonobo chimps. Many researchers
credit our cousins with primitive language capacity, tool usage, and even
self-awareness. I doubt, though, that many would find interpreting chimp
behavior in the context of fitness to be un-orthodox in anyway. Indeed it is
the norm.
Cheers
CMR
, misguidedly based on randomness, yields
deterministic results for quantum interactions shown accurate to many
dozens of decimal places. This suggests that simple deterministic models
will most likely be found.
Jim
CMR
-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here --
The problem is that there is a large class of physical systems that
are
not computable by TMs, i.e., they are intractable. Did you read the
Wolfram quote that I included in one of my posts? Please read the entire
article found here:
Another way of thinking of this is to concider the
Later analyses showed that this doesn't really work; that selfish
behaviors have strong selective advantage compared to the relatively
weak effects of group selection. It would be very difficult for an
altruistic behavior to spread and persist within a group if it caused
disadvantage to the
complexity would be
deleterious to the survival of the host universe and thus lower it's
relative fitness? Or am I full of it here?
Ever fearing the latter,
CMR
-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here --
The fact that an Algorithm is independent of any particular
implementation is not reducible to the idea that Algorithms (or Numbers,
or
White Rabbits, etc.) can exist without some REAL resources being used in
their implementation (and maybe some kind of thermodynamics).
To paraphrase
Greetings Stephen,
BTW, have you ever read about the Maxwell Demon?
Being partial to the information physical view; not only have I read it, I
also account for it by viewing a system's information as physical.
So by inference should then I be viewing the mapping of the intra and extra
universal
Greetings Pete,
If not, then can you say what it is about the active process of
flipping or laying down that counts as computation but does not count
when the stack is a static block?
I suppose I'm ultimately in the hard info physics camp, in that the
pattern's the thing; given the 2ds and
Think of it this way, what is the cardinality of the equivalence class
of representations R of, say, a 1972 Jaguar XKE, varying over *all
possible
languages* and *symbol systems*? I think it is at least equal to the
Reals.
Is this correct? If R has more than one member, how can we
And what does it say about the physical properties which are necessary
for computation? We have energy; Life has blinkiness (the degree to
which cells are blinking on and off within a structure); neither property
has a good analog in the other universe. Does the real universe win,
in terms
One other scenario is that a civilization has indeed reached this
pervasive
state, but not in a form we'd readily recognize. They may be
nano-lifeforms
or microorganisms, for example. This is probably harder to believe
because
only so much complexity can be stored in such an organism,
I hate u
I have been trying to unsubscribe for weeks and it turns out nothing.pls
unsubscribe me from your f*g list cause I don't wanna receive any
message from U guys EVER
Thank you!
Silvia Axinescu
Guess somebody should have told her that she needed to unsubscribe
life.
Ilachkinski suggests that as AI extends the exploration of possible life,
the associated self-consistent artificial physics might well point to
physics as it could be as opposed to the physics we know(?).
CMR
in the lifetime of some of those on this list, if not in
my own. If so, we most likely will never be sure of the entitys'
consciousness. And they would just as likely have to take our word about
it regarding ours (our intelligence may be even less obvious to them).
Cheers
CMR
The Emergence of Life paper is talking specifically about those sorts
of life that can emerge
WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ALREADY SMARTER, MORE-ORGANIZED AGENT.
That's why that kind of life (natural life) is a truly emergent or
(emergent from less-order) system.
Well, I'm an agnostic, but
to, and requirements for, terrestrial life have had
to be revised and extended of late, given thermophiles and the like. Though
they obviously share our dimensional requisites, they do serve to highlight
the risk of prematurely pronouncing the facts of life.
CMR
Possibly relevant to this thread:
NYTimes:
January 8, 2004
New-Found Old Galaxies Upsetting Astronomers' Long-Held Theories on the Big
Bang
By KENNETH CHANG
ATLANTA, Jan. 7 Gazing deep into space and far into the past, astronomers
have found that the early universe, a couple of billion years
Of potential interest:
News
Mesons violate Bell's inequality (Nov 6)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/11/3
The famous Bell's inequality of quantum mechanics has been tested in a
high-energy particle physics experiment for the first time. The
inequality was violated by three
get fucked
Well, based upon the vast vocabulary as evidenced by this incisive argument
by the poster, obviously a man of the vast intellect and insight of a George
Bush! Impressive indeed!
Cheers
lighten up benny
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Tegmark's multiverse theory doesn't make it appropriate to initiate -- or
multiply -- the gratuitous.
get
(sentient
or otherwise) and that implies an inherent subjectivity.
when and where there is agreement among judges upon the intersection of
recognized patterns, it is labeled shared reality. Where there is not
intersection, I call it reality and you call me delusional...
Cheers
CMR
-- insert
CMR wrote:
there is regularity and there is the random (whether it be absolute or
effectively so - both are equivalent from the receiving end); the mere
fact
that we are having this discussion indicates some level of regularity in
the
interaction; but there is randomness as well;
I do
through our laws of physics that the nature of computation can
be understood. It can never be vice versa.
methinks it be just the inverse; the laws of fizziks emerge from
underlying computation, itself the result of initial rules (laws?)...
CMR
--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my
Gödel's incompleteness theorems have and justly should be judged/interpreted
purely on the merits of the arguments themselves, not the author's
subjective(prejudiced?) interpretation, no?
He was as much a victim(beneficiary?) of his discoveries as was anyone...
CMR
--enter gratuitous quotation
42 matches
Mail list logo
