Thank you, we should have remembered that zig-zag approach!
--
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
Hi everyone and everything, I was discussing comp and similar things with
Liz the other day and we came across a sticking point in what I think (from
memory) is step 7 of the UDA. Maybe you can help?
I'm assuming AR, "Yes, Doctor" and so on. At step 7 we reach the point
where we assume that a
Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net Sep 05 07:06PM -0400
On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
So why discuss them?
Yes, what's the point?
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
the existence and stability of Black Hole.
More information, please!!! :-)
Happy new year Charles,
Thank you, and happy new year to you, too!
Best wishes,
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
Hi Bruno
What observable properties of black holes may be explained by the fact that
they don't erase information? Is that a purely hypothetical suggestion, or
is it something we may observe in the near future, or may have already
observed, indirectly?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Charles
--
You
That's a bit simplistic. The nett result of EPR/Bell/Aspect is either-
indeterminism-or-nonlocal-hidden-variable. If NLHV's can be disproved,
that proves indeterminism
Actually there is a third alternative, which is to take the time
symmetry of physical law seriously, as suggested by Huw
Fred Hoyle suggested the idea of quantum suicide for a civilisation in
“October the 1st is too late” written around 1964 I think. That’s the first
occurrence I know of it.
Charles
_
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
On Mar 5, 8:43 am, Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
and in any case is a thought experiment.
The term seems particularly appropriate in this case!
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
, as suggested by some evidence that
photopsynthesis does (quoted by Bruno in another thread) - in which
case it might be impossible, even in principle, to reproduce the
activity of the rest of the brain (I'm not sure whether it would, but
it seems a lot more likely).
Charles
--
You received this message
I'm sorry to hear that, Bruno. Hope you get well soon!
Charles
On Mar 4, 3:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I may be absent for a period, for reason of sciatica.
Best,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Price's point of view, by the way.)
Charles
--
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 this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr
, even in principle. (The
fact that we're also dealing with quantum systems that are disturbed
by normally time-directed measurements, never mind past-directed
ones (whatever that would mean in practice) may be an additional
hurdle...)
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
of
it.
Charles
--
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 this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
), and in my attempts at writing a novel
I often find that the way forward - resolving a scene, say - often
comes to me if I happen to wake up in the middle of the night.
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
of this and some other retrocausation ideas by William
Wharton:
Good point.
(Mind you, that link you posted doesn't seem quite right! :-) Should
it be this?
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_time_and_causality.pdf
-- it looks interesting, anyway!)
Charles
--
You received this message
temporal extremities, would be a very weird place to live (unless it
existed for a long enough time to come to thermal equilibrium in the
middle).
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
, the future would be the
past. :-)
Exactly! (Which is why a Gold universe would be a rather strange place
to live...)
Charles
--
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
Schulmann has written a nice little book about this considering both a
classical and quantum universe.
/Time's Arrows and Quantum Measurement/. L. S. Schulman. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1997
Thank you, if I have worlds enough and time (and money) I will get a
copy.
Charles
(if that's what he's saying, I may have
misunderstood) seems at odds with the existence of radioactivity.
Charles
--
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
(and occasionally Scientific American), and seems to me to be
unnecessarily complicating the issue until the standard laws of
physics has been shown conclusively not to be up to the job.
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
to build conscious creatures
(actually, it's quite possible we aren't individuals - we seem to
contain at least two individuals who share a lot of their resources,
as split-brain operations show).
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
. They are part of a universe-filling web, which
is anchored to whatever boundary conditions obtain on the universe
as a whole.
Charles
--
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
preserved.
Charles
--
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 this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options
) to the low-entropy conditions near the Big Bang.
Charles
--
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 this group, send email to
everything-list
, and that the
initial low entropy is sufficient to explain everything about the
arrow of time. This moves the explanatory burden, of course.
Sorry, that seems rather obvious - did I miss the point of the
question?
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
, since the latter states
that the person has many fates!)
Charles
--
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 this group, send email to
everything
certainly sounded convincing,
although only anecdotal of course. I certainly think we still have a
lot to learn about the mind and consciousness (always assuming it's
possible to do so).
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
to
explain why there is an arrow of time given the apparent
indifference of most physical laws, this seems to me to be a line of
enquiry that is at least worth pursuing.
Charles
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
breaking, like neutral
kaon decay (IIRC) ? If so, it won't fit into his scheme!
Charles
--
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 this group, send email
of these
underlying processes.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 9:34 a.m.
To: rwas
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ODP: Free will/consciousness/ineffability
Whatever free will is, it is very doubtful
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 12:06 p.m.
To: Charles Goodwin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ODP: Free will/consciousness/ineffabili
My intuition doesn't tell me whether or not I would have a 'feeling' of
free
) !
Charles
to argue the thing wasn't
conscious.
Charles
, for
example.
Charles
I agree that the Fred Hoyle style spotlight isn't needed, leads to an unnecessary
external time and infinite regress, etc.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2001 4:46 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW
flawed
initial assumption about existence ?
Charles
of alternation between Nothing and Something. (Otherwise the
only sort of alternation possible is a sort
of logical one, perhaps?)
Charles
as soon as I see what all the initial comments are.
OK, I look forward to reading more...
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 4:35 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: In one page or less
Dear Charles:
In response to another of your comments and to clarify:
If nothing exists, including any external
of course.
The sun does seem to be in a very stable orbit about the galaxy - almost circular, in
fact. See Rare Earth for an explanation of
why this is one of the many factors that had to come out just right for us to exist at
all...
Charles
is the Everything. It
contains no
information and it can not contain enduring fully
deterministic universes.
This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you have time
could you post something which is more
understandable to the layman?
Charles
) is called the
Multiverse. Platonia is either as big as the MV (both
being continua) or bigger (a higher order of infinity than the Multiverse).
All the above assumes the MWI is correct (evidence: quantum interference), and that
Platonia exists (evidence (?) : the weak
anthropic principle).
Charles
, but do you see
what I mean? Our observations aren't actually
*incompatible* with QTI, even if they do only cover an infinitsimal chunk of our total
observer moments.
Charles
worldlines as though we've just been dropped into them at some random point, like
Billy Pilgrim; which is, of course, not what
happens in reality.
Maybe there are some more technical objections to the SSA argument, but these are the
simplest and most obvious.
Charles
not, however, prevent the universe itself from
creating two objects in the same quantum state, if
it's allowed to generate every conceivable arrangement of mass-energy - as may be the
case in a single, infinite universe, and is
definitely the case according to the MWI.
Charles
very very (keep typing very for another
couple of weeks) unlikely that you will meet up with a typical observer who isn't
yourself.
Charles
will call (4).
Charles
black hole
right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years before we hit
the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of issue ago).
Enough time to move elsewhere I guess.
Charles
that he'll
live to be 80 is 1/80?)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 12:35 p.m.
To: Charles Goodwin
Cc: Everything-List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False
The reason for failure of Jacques
to do those computations.
I will be interested to know the results when you do!
Of course the doctrine of reincarnation (it always seemed to me) only requires one
soul - a bit like Feynman's one-electron
universe, it just zip-zags back and forth...
Charles
carefully are you merely ensuring that
elsewhere in the multiverse you aren't??? I'm not sure where this leads in probability
terms, especially given an uncountable
infinity of universes branching off every second.
Not that I'm advocating dangerous driving.
Charles
state, as well as a (larger) uncountable
infinity in which he doesn't.
Charles
to QTI *no* observer moments ever lead to death. Every observer moment of
every organism that has ever lived has
timelike-infinite continuity. This leads to very very very big numbers, even if we
allowed the output from the SWE to be
quantised - which it isn't.
Charles
theory, given certain assumptions - but not easily testable in the sense
that most theories try to be (i.e. third person
testable, so to speak).
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2001 7:21 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
state on the assumption that we have an accurate record of past
experience *is* what we mean by remembering past
experience. But I know what you mean, and I agree!)
Charles
or the aether turned out not to exist.
Charles
. The sort of thing
we're discussing here can often be
conveniently abbreviated as 'the laws of physics'. I'm not sure what point you're
trying to make by arguing about semantics?
Charles
- Original Message -
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
analogy in
October the 1st is too late) - we ARE those observer moments. It's a bit like the
probability of me being born as me. The
probability was 1, because otherwise I wouldn't be me! Similarly for this particular
observer moment.
Charles
the state of every particle?) but a complete codified
description of how reality works is another story.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2001 4:14 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: My history
isn't the case! (Even on those rare occassions when I argue with my
better half, she very rarely calls me a
microbe...)
Charles
PS - I could be a butterfly dreaming that I'm a man, I suppose...
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 4
as a
severed head, or . . . what??? Just curious!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Charles Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 September 2001 1:42 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FIN too
Um, OK, I don't want to get into an infinite argument here. I
guess we
. There's something in the email header which tells
it where to send the reply to, apparently
Apologies to anyone I've replied to directly, it wasn't intentional.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2001 6:59 a.m
is quantised, AND quantum-identical objects really *are* the same object.
This seems like a reasonable theory on the face of it. Hard to prove, though, unless
you've had personal experience of living a
*very* long time
Charles
, but do you see
what I mean? Our observations aren't actually
*incompatible* with QTI, even if they do only cover an infinitsimal chunk of our total
observer moments.
Charles
consciousness a split second after having your head removed, QTI
would still have to explain how you got from
'immediately after being beheaded' to anywhere else...!
Charles
TU that you
ever will) (and I'm assuming you haven't
reached 120 yet), you can't really use a self-sampling
argument on this, surely?
if FIN isn't related to QTI (it appears to be from the stuff I'm replying to but
you never know) please ignore the above
comments :-)
Charles
-Original
66 matches
Mail list logo
