Re: NYTimes.com: Alzheimer’s Drug Slows Cognitive Decline in Key Study

Always follow these types of results since my father had Alzheimer's... a .45 benefit on a scale of 18 does not exactly get me excited though. On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:23:52 PM UTC+10 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscrib

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

I wonder if this guy is trolling us, or just looking for internet glory. He would surely understand the critical point that LaMDA is not a continuously running program that is dynamically trying to make sense of itself and the world, but only runs when triggered by some input to generate a text

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 2:49 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 1/27/2021 5:11 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: >> I’m not saying decoherence is reversible. I’ve corrected myself (or accepted >> your correction) on that poin

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 12:02 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:47 AM Pierz Newton-John <mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:32 am, Bruce Kellett <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:32 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:20 AM Pierz Newton-John <mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:03 am, Bruce Kellett <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:03 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra > wrote: > > FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could > never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found the > correct way t

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 6:36 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:27:43 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jan 2021, at 23:34, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? >> >> >> That’s Bohr idea. But it means that meas

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 26 Jan 2021, at 12:39 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 1:23:07 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wro

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:23 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 1:34:29 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz w

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com >>> wro

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> *> So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO know >>> what world I am in ! I

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 8:25 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:00:46 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes >> rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and shows that

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 5:36 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 1/17/2021 10:00 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes > rigorous the intuiti

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

I forgot to add the link. I’m sure it’s been shared here before and probably dissected to death: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8 On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 5:00 pm, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes > rigoro

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and shows that a single-world QM is inconsistent, given some very broad and sensible-sounding parameters, like “quantum mechanics describes reality at all scales” and “no sup

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

es the state of M. What MWI says is that M remains in a superposition of all outcomes until M’ interacts with it. The stipulation that e an M are in a definite, singular state before being measured is a red herring. > > > Il 16/01/2021 13:25 Pierz Newton-John ha scritto: > > &

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

aturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>>> >>>&

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you > have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate &

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 P

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Thur

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 1

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 1

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 12

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Sund

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent measurements, for >>> subseque

Re: Be very afraid!

"the only progress in the human science since Plato…" well that's pretty hilarious Bruno, since Plato *lived* in the first democracy, and hated it as a political system. Not to mention that you just cavalierly dismissed all of psychology, anthropology, moral and political philosophy etc etc. O

Re: Unhappiness with the universe

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:48:40 PM UTC+11, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:30 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >>> *> If we're convinced it's finite in age, then it can't be infinite in >>> spatial

Re: Cosmology in crisis as evidence suggests our universe isn't flat, it's actually curved.

There are sooo many examples of this misconception on Quora. Here's one answer from Viktor Toth, who is excellent with the late explanations: https://qr.ae/TSjfO3 On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:37:25 AM UTC+11, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 4:42:50 AM UTC-7, L

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:05:29 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz > > wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: &

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> *> I think your* [Brent Meeker] *point about other conservation laws is >>> interesting -- especially cha

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:44:57 PM UTC+10, PGC wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:13:34 AM UTC+2, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> Howdy cowboy. I know what you're saying. Everyone here has their drum to >> bang - and bang it they will

Re: A purely relational ontology?

elationships in consciousness end at some primary irreducible atom of consciousness with the intrinsic property of being conscious? I say no. I say that that that web of relations ultimately merges into the infinite web of relations that is the cosmos, a web that has no fundamental properties th

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 9:16:58 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Jun 2019, at 00:13, Pierz > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:05:53 PM UTC+10, PGC wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:15:43 AM UTC+2,

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 2:24:36 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/19/2019 6:07 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:12:33 PM UTC+10, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> >> Red is red. >> > > No I don't think it is. I do unde

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:12:33 PM UTC+10, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Red is red. > No I don't think it is. I do understand your point of view. Indeed subjectively red does seem to be red, some kind of irreducible. Yet it is far from unambiguously clear that this is really the case. Imagine

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 8:58:49 PM UTC+10, telmo wrote: > > Hi Pierz, > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, at 04:15, Pierz wrote: > > > I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of > reality which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in re

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 12:44:35 AM UTC+10, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Hi Pierz, > > Your writings remind me very much of the work of Gilles Deleuze, a > philosopher who similarly shifted ontology from *identity* to *relation, *and > explored many interesting consequen

Re: A purely relational ontology?

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:05:53 PM UTC+10, PGC wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:15:43 AM UTC+2, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of >> reality which avoids the debates about wh

Re: Epistemological anarchism

Yes, though it was a fairly strong claim based on the cited evidence, which was his demonstration that all the principles of the so-called scientific method have been violated at various times in the course of important scientific discoveries. By analogy one might show that all laws have been b

A purely relational ontology?

I've been thinking and writing a lot recently about a conception of reality which avoids the debates about what is fundamental in reality. It seems to me that with regards to materialism, we find it very difficult to escape the evolutionarily evolved, inbuilt notion of "things" and "stuff" th

What happens to old entanglements?

A question for the physicists. I understand that entanglement is monogamous, which is really just a way of saying that a system's correlations with other systems cannot exceed +-1. Thus a maximally entangled system has no room for entanglement with any other system. The question is what happens

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

Obviously you can't measure the particle simultaneously in the up and down state. Nobody believes that. Nobody is arguing it. Honestly it's hard to understand why you have such an agitated bee in your bonnet about superpositions. The mathematical expression of the photon polarised at 45 degrees

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:50:30 AM UTC+11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:22:46 PM UTC, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 9:40:39 PM UTC+11, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>>

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 9:40:39 PM UTC+11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >> >> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation >> > that the syste

Re: The hard problem of matter

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:53:59 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:12 PM Pierz > > wrote: > > >> *>a lot of what passes for intelligent in the domain of machines is in >> fact dumb as dogshit.* >> > > And so afte

Re: The hard problem of matter

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:41:39 PM UTC+11, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/9/2018 9:18 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:45:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: The hard problem of matter

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:16:59 PM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:54 PM Pierz > > wrote: > > >*I refuse to accept that "axiom", and I also do not feel compelled to >> embrace solipsism.* >> > > You are ab

Re: The hard problem of matter

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:48:21 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:26 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > For "intelligent", *conventional compilers* (2) will do. There will be > > *intelligent >> agents* from Google, IBM, Apple, ... . They are already advertised as

Re: Neural networks score higher than humans in reading and comprehension test

However, challenging the “comprehension” description, Gary Marcus , PhD, a Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at NYU, notes in a tweet that “the SQUAD test shows that machines can highlight relevant passages in text, not that they understand those passages.” On

Re: Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

oscillations of the bond. Correct? > LC > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 4:41:45 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:46:34 AM UTC+11, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 a

Re: Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:46:34 AM UTC+11, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:45:59 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote: >> >> Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian >> is preserved (doesn't change), the ham

Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian is preserved (doesn't change), the hamiltonian being the measure of energy in a system. This has led me to understand energy as a measure of change over time in a physical system. That might be obvious, except I've never

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

Bruno, do you believe there is a different world for every possible basis in which a spin (or other observable) might be measured? That seems pretty strange. On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:27:14 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > > On

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:08:42 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/19/2017 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > So back to quantum computation: what I think that QC demonstrates > (independently of it being realised by network models or cluster > states) is that the superposition of states

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:28:18 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > Sorry. Something funny with my verizon account. > > Brent > > On 5/30/2017 8:09 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > Brent, are you replying from a mobile? I’m still receiving your replies, > as othe

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be very lucid and helpful - they also confirm my own understanding. IIRC, you weren't a particular fan of MWI when I last conversed with you on this list. I wonder if you'd care to comment on my original argument on this thread

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: > > On 29/05/2017 11:21 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett > > > wrote: > >> On 29/05/2017 10:42 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce Kellett > >>> > wrote:

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

Russell, do you believe that Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition of dead and alive before we open the box? On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:26:49 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: > > On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> Th

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

l Standish wrote: > > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote: > > > > > > > > >We are merely ignorant of its state. I would argue the same > > >applies to the colour o

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 12:24:32 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: >> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thoug

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought > about > > how, according to special relativity, you can t

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 2:21:37 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m > seeing this business with “reply to David 4” etc…? > > > On 26 May 2

A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space and vice versa, and therefore how from a different perspective we can think of the past as distant in space rather than time: my childhood being 40 l

Re: Has the mind-body problem been solved (was Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 4:44:33 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/31/2016 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 31 May 2016, at 00:36, Pierz wrote: > > > >> Clark v Marchal! I love this match-up. I predict it will go 47000 > >>

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

Clark v Marchal! I love this match-up. I predict it will go 47000 rounds without a knockout! -- 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

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:58:11 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Pierz > > wrote: > ​\ > > ​ > > ​> ​ >> Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on >> the notion of black holes sp

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

Very interesting. LIGO's observation is a one point dataset, but the principle of mediocrity still allows one to make some predictions from it. There would surely be some relatively simple maths that should tell us that if the universe contains only stellar black holes, approximately how often

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on the notion of black holes spawning new universes, with each BH tweaking the laws of physics slightly in the new universe. But black hole theory has progressed a lot since then and I don't think anything in the modern theorie

Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!

Energy, John Mikes, is just a measure of change in a physical system with time. Or change in arrangements of spacetime in the time direction. And what is mass? It's just changes in spacetime in the space direction(s). And it turns out each can be rotated to become the other. What is spacetime? W

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 2:01:09 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/27/2015 5:49 PM, Pierz wrote: > > The argument that the telescope should be built (or not) can only be > > founded on values, not facts. Like JC, I value the progress of > > scienti

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

For my own selfish reasons - I dig deep-space photography and love reading about new astronomical discoveries - I wish the telescope had gone ahead. And when the benefits and competing interests are weighed up I tend to agree the wrong decision was made here. However, I disagree with the simpli

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:06:48 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Pierz > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:48:49 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> >>

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:48:49 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Pierz > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:27:04 AM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> >>

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 4:30:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> &

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:27:04 AM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Pierz > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:20:32 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >>> >>&

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > > thesis, then we have to consider the possib

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> O

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: > > OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has > intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being >

Intelligent design - maybe?

OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on computation. This necesssarily implies (by Church thesis) that the hardware

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:20:32 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Pierz > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:01:08 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:01:08 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/30/2015 5:39 AM, Pierz wrote: > > So imagine a guy washed up on a small desert island after a plane crash. > Unfortunately during the plane crash he suffered a traumatic injury which > cause

The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

So imagine a guy washed up on a small desert island after a plane crash. Unfortunately during the plane crash he suffered a traumatic injury which caused him to completely lose his memory. He wakes up on the sure without the faintest clue about who he is or where he comes from. He doesn't even

Re: What day is it?

It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori existence of arithmetic. Though admittedly that is a different point to whether or not physics is "emulated" in arithmetic. On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 4:32:47 PM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7

Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 2:24:36 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Sep 2015, at 14:11, Pierz wrote: > > I disagree with most of the theorising about this scenario, which seems to > me to be coming from a much too theoretical place. Humans may or may not b

Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams

I disagree with most of the theorising about this scenario, which seems to me to be coming from a much too theoretical place. Humans may or may not be computational at base, but we are not PCs. We are not blank slates, waiting for an operating system to be installed. Our brains and bodies imply

Re: Gödel's Philosophy

chemicals as we, if it is the > functions/patterns/mathematical relations that determine consciousness. > > I read the formal rights in the same way you did, that ethics/politics is > an objective, rather than subjective science. > > Jason > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at

Re: Gödel's Philosophy

could impart some rigor to Anselm's argument. > > Jason > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Pierz > > wrote: > >> It's amazing to me that a man of Gödel's brilliance could take the drivel >> of the ontological argument seriously. Did I miss something

Gödel's Philosophy

It's amazing to me that a man of Gödel's brilliance could take the drivel of the ontological argument seriously. Did I miss something about that specious piece of sophistry? Other than that I'm in 87.5% agreement with him... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:35:50 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Sep 2015, at 22:48, meekerdb wrote: > > On 9/2/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > So now you agree with me that there are different kinds and degrees of > consciousness; that it is not just a binary attribute

A scary theory about IS

Just felt like ramming your stick in the ant's nest did you Liz? :) -- 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.c

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 4:35:06 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote: >>

Re: MWI question for the physicists...

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:00:05 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: > > Pierz wrote: > > > > And it's true, you can't determine probabilities by counting > branches. > > > > Not by counting the number of eigenvalues, but by treating the >

Re: MWI question for the physicists...

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 3:24:08 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 Pierz > wrote: > >> ​> ​ >> Consider a set-up in which a photon is polarized in the z direction, so >> that we know that the particle will, with probability 1, pass t

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

So here's an excerpt from this paper: h ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609006v1.pdf, which was recently linked in response to a question I asked about MWI. This seems to echo *exactly* your concerns about identity/pronouns in the duplication experiment, and to resolve them, even though this is

Re: Idiot Test

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:51:37 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Pierz > > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to >> John Clarke. I suspect I alr

Re: Idiot Test

Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however. On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:09:42 AM UTC+10, Kim Jones wrote: > > OK - perhaps this post is not entirely serious. I don't actually know. > > There appears to be n

Re: Re: MWI question for the physicists...

Thanks - that looks interesting! I'll be reading that on the train tonight... On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+10, scerir wrote: > > BTW there is an amusing paper by (the manyworlder) Lev Vaidman. > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609006 > > > > -- You received this message bec

  1   2   3   4   >