On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
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
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. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I will put
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results
of random choices.
If reality computes, then reality is a computer/universal-number. If
reality is physical reality, then this
On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the
Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation
This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is
many-world.
If there is no collapse, QM (classical or
On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Decoherence is a well
Dear Bruno,
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 separation level there will also be one but
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 answer is 1.
At last a straight answer, the
Bruno,
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
time
Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's
incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught
us
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
With decoherence everything is a wavefunction
No. 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
John,
Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather
than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM.
I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark
On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies
many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those
wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single
world.
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 (pardon me!) incoherent.
That entire
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.
There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this
world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you think there is a connection?
To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident
On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
The MWI
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
proposed. Do
Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to
Something to think about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.
There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It
says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you think there is a connection?
Dear Brent,
Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a
sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function
formulation...
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense?
Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation...
I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation.
Brent,
The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted
interpretations on them...
EDgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I
Brent,
You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific
decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in
decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at
all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations
on them...
But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do
you get from there to the definite observation?
On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results
yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in
calculating them with no reference at all to either of your
Liz,
OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that we are unaware of
the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled
(correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. That is precisely
what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is.
But the next step is
Brent,
You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it
wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence
that produces results but of course we do...
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM,
Brent,
Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct.
That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic.
It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish
alternative interpretation
Edgar
On Saturday, December
Hi Brent,
Allow me to use your words directly:
Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities
and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of
them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an
illusion due to our
Brent,
What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality
math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because
events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc.
only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how
Dear Edgar,
Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter
and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did
you have with this idea?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
What we need to
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for
them.
There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this
world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you
Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important. In Copenhagen you have to
apply the Born rule and then say those are the probabilities of my observation and *one*
of them occurs. Everett says they all occur and different instances of *you* observe
them. So which is your
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.
This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its information
only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could equally say that
OK, I like Omnes too, and Fuchs and Peres. But their view is that the wavefunction is
just a calculational device thru which we make predictions. So the collapse of the
wavefunction is just us learning new results and revising our prediction.
But you seem to have a more physical model of
Brent,
Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is
happening is independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and
there is no deterministic way to align separate independent spaces (in the
absence of a common background reference space which does not
On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that
compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen.
But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce
On 12/28/2013 5:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is happening is
independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and there is no deterministic way
to align separate independent spaces (in the absence of a common
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Something to think about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that
ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.
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
probabilities of choices.
Big difference. Reality does the
Richard and Stephen,
ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
doesn't exist!
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote:
Something
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made.
How can a computation make a random choice?
Jason
But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
actually makes
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Richard and Stephen,
ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
doesn't exist!
Edgar
How do you know it doesn't exist?
Jason
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
I quote myself:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM,
Richard, and Bruno,
I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing.
Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of
the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever
come up with. It's right up there with block time, and many
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Richard, and Bruno,
I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing.
Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of
the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience
whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac
equation, not Shrodinger's equation
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2
On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express
them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience
Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I
don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation.
Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the
probability measure.
For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50%
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable
results, and
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Jason,
See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they
On 23 Dec 2013, at 12:59, Edgar Owen wrote:
Jason, John, and Bruno,
One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject
of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their
structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems).
The contents and their structure are
On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
I quote myself:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer
Jason, John, and Bruno,
One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard
Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects
of the Easy Problems).
The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of
organisms,
Dear Edgar,
Have you considered reflexivity based theories of consciousness, such as
thus proposed by Greg
Zuckermanhttp://www.cs.yale.edu/publications/techreports/tr1383.pdfand
Louis
H.
Kauffmanhttp://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/hvf/papers/kauffman05eigenform.pdf?
(Kauffman does not
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
I quote myself:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
question John Clark asked, the question
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
Buy some pair of eyes and come back here.
Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw
Bruno
Vu
Le 24 déc. 2013 19:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
Buy some pair of eyes and come back here.
On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable
infinity of integers to represent, no finite version
On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to
the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything
about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will
repeat the
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means.
The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person
experience.
I know that, what I don't know is what number Bruno
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot
The question is ambiguous.
If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the
first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view !
If your phrase means anything you should be able to
2013/12/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot
The question is ambiguous.
If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the
first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view !
If
2013/12/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
Buy some pair of eyes and come back here.
Liar Clark is dodging questions
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the
platform of physical sciences -
I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that
Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an
arithmetical
On 21 Dec 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about
the 3p view, it was never
On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable
infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of
it, in other words, can its proof be found?
If its shortest proof is
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there
is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points
of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p
view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
fifth time: how many first person
Hi John,
I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The
number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person
experience. The point here is that each entity can only experience their
own. The notion of a 3rd person experience can only consider the
On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of
integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words,
can
Hi Brent,
Is there a reason why we only consider the 'standard models to apply
when we are considering foundation theory (or whatever you might denote
what we are studying)? Have you ever looked at the Tennenbaum
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
physical sciences -
I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason
is
On 21 December 2013 13:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
I think it was you that wrote (to me):
I was not defending that view, but pointing out how
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for
a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark
will
Hi Jason,
That is a beautifully clear explanation of how assuming comp leads to the
existence of self aware beings within arithmetic realism. You have shown
that philosophical debate can also be poetry!
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable matter needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly,
given that the appearance of matter is only the result of the FPI
on
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I think it was you that wrote (to me):
I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would
be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by
someone
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it
run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100%
chance John Clark will eventually find himself in
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear LizR,
Is math in our heads or is it somehow out there. If it is out
there how does it connect to what is in our heads?
Mathematicians simulate other objects and realities using their heads,
On 20 Dec 2013, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Could it be that the physical world that is associated with an
observer (using your definition of an observer) is the truth of
that observer? I apologize for the weirdness of this question, but
consider that nothing is
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
What specifically?
The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism.
All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there.
I learned those figments in
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:09, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
How many first person experiences viewed from their first person
points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
right now?
The question is ambiguous.
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding
oneself at the intended destination
JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100%
chance
On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can
you list the implicit assumptions?
I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional
research - now reduced in
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:43, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
What specifically?
The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical
realism. All the rest is a logical deduction
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of
mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist.
If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind
us of
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
physical sciences - at least on a mthematical justification of theorems.
Even Bruno's we see is suspect: we *THINK* we see, in adjusted ways as we
can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of
mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist.
If you
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise,
if a change in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about
10^44 times a second; and a consciousness that never changes is not a
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view,
it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth
2013/12/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view,
it was never mentioned. So
On 22 December 2013 07:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view,
it
On 21 December 2013 11:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise!
Immaterial indeed :-)
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum?
--
You
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of
integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words,
can its
proof be found?
If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required
Hi Brent,
I don't like these types of truth predicates since they are Platonic in
their assumptions, as if statements do not even involve or relate to finite
entities like ourselves or, more relevant to my own work, real world
computers. Consider a paper by Lou Kauffman that considers a local
101 - 200 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
