On 03 Jul 2014, at 20:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
On 04 Jul 2014, at 02:15, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Is the measure idempotent?
How could a measure function be idempotent? It is a function from some
algebra of sets into some order or number structure. You cannot apply
the measure a second times on its result, as it will
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard
The
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and the comp
measure are three different things.
Richard
They are three different measures, but all satisfy the measure axioms.
What I was trying to get at was
Hi Bruno,
Is the measure idempotent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence?
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?
The standard measure on the reals is based on the
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400,
On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is
a metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-
god
Hi,
Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?
My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
universe that matches one that can be modeled as some
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,
Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?
My point is that given that the chance of the
Hi Russell,
Let me rephrase. You wrote: With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.
I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
the existence of an observer to be completely defined
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Let me rephrase. You wrote: With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.
I never understood where the measure 1 comes from
Hi Russell,
I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Let me rephrase.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?
Because a finite constraint matches an infinite number of zero measure
items.
Consider the set of real numbers
On 26 Jun 2014, at 05:51, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying yes to the doctor if
you insist on there being no discontinuity in your consciousness.
Only if a change in your quantum state causes a discontinuity in your
consciousness, but your quantum state changes hundreds of thousands of
millions of
On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all simulations. Saying
that some of those are more real than other is a metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows
that it is a gap-of-the-god type of assumption.
But it is not a physical
On 30 June 2014 11:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a
metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a
On 6/29/2014 10:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
Only if a change in your quantum state causes a discontinuity in your consciousness, but
your quantum state changes hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of trillions of
times a second. And by the way, what does a discontinuity in your
On 30 June 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
Only if a change in your quantum state causes a discontinuity in your
consciousness, but your quantum state changes hundreds of thousands of
millions of billions of trillions of times a
On 12/19/2013 1:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/19/2013 1:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is
that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction with
neurons, but
also the level which captures interaction with 'external' or
On 26 June 2014 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying yes to the doctor
if you insist on there being no discontinuity in your consciousness. The
Moscow man and the Washington man will be in different quantum states even
before they
On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction
with neurons, but also the level which
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but
the point
is that it's not just the
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction
with neurons, but also the
On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but
the point is that
On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason
On 26 June 2014 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch
On 6/25/2014 8:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR
On 26 June 2014 16:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That isn't the reason I gave. I pointed out that for the consciousness of
the MGA to be achieved it had to consciousness of a world and that world
had to have a physics and the consciousness then depended on events and
processes in
On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote.
Interleaving.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb
Richard,
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,
that is QM without collapse. *All*
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Richard,
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
I disagree with this. Everett did
On 1/2/2014 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?) indicating that we can
never know the thing in itself only our interpretation of it.
(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)
I think that's what science has taught metaphysics. We make up
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What
exactly does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:58, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math' -
Physics' - ...
That spiral too in the UD*, but the Brent's circles also. Without any
paradox involved. Note
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being
Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?)
indicating that we can never know the thing in itself only our
interpretation of it.
(Actually isn't that also what comp
On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does fundamental
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must
On 1/1/2014 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?)
indicating that
we can never
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly
does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something
fundamental?
Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very important.
In
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
Not at all!
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:11 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
...or am I???
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.
Not quite, it might not explain much but at least the Everything happens
theory doesn't make the problem worse. The everything happens because God
made things that way
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does fundamental
level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Fundamental is often used in
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do
you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?
Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced that Everett's
MWI is the last
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?
Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but
Hi Brent,
It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math'
-Physics' - ...
The knowledge evolves in time.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate,
or do you honestly not see
On 1 January 2014 13:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do
On 12/31/2013 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
I don't know about the SBI, unless I know it under a different name - please
explain?
The subjective Bayesian interpretation is what Jason dismisses as don't ask. It's the
interpretation advocated by Asher Peres (who's excellent textbook is available
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?) indicating
that we can never know the thing in itself only our interpretation of it.
(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)
On 1 January 2014 14:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds, to me.
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:02, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities?
Gibve me the axioms. I know the dominical categories (of Turing
morphism), but just to get the definition
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
ofcomputer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the
Hi LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to
On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of
Hi LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 6:19 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King stephe
On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Brent,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
On 12/30/2013 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 31 December 2013 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
...or am I???
--
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 post to this group, send email to
On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But
the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the
Oops apologies to Jason - great minds etc!
I should have read to the end of the thread before I posted... but the
question stands, regardless.
On 29 December 2013 23:34, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
No, reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider
interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a
low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of
state remains. It can be shown that at the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote
How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth
right now?
Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
I answered this two times already. The
On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.
?
That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.
Decoherence falsifies many worlds.
Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/
environment. It
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW. First of all you have to understand what
a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. It's a description of a
physical object in human math. Basically in QM its formulated as the
Liz,
Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random
choices. That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or
define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results
by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was supposed to
be a scientific forum!
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Richard and Stephen,
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:40, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, when you wrote:
...arithmetic number's dreams = physics
OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one.
And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science...
for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem
On 29 Dec 2013, at 02:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the
computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense.
Computations are not physical. I agree. They are arithmetical notion.
But I can't understand
Dear Bruno,
I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote. Interleaving.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions
between
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk
about
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist?
I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest
that the soul for lack of a better word. It is that each of us has
that feels and experiences, it
Jason,
O, for God's sakes. No wonder you believe in block time, MW, the
nonexistence of the present moment and the tooth fairy!;-)
Just wait till I present my theory of consciousness!
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:04:31 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM,
I will put myself in a superposition and execute the
On 29 Dec 2013, at 15:19, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was
supposed to be a scientific forum!
I guess *you* take seriously some theory of soul, to be so sure that
it does not exist, or could not have any sense.
soul is often
Bruno,
To answer your last question please refer to the new topic I just started
Another stab at how spacetime emergences computationally or something
like that. I forget exactly how I titled it...
Best,
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:36:05 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec
1 - 100 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
