On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences
into account
The not a ?? For the third time please say how many first
person experiences exist on planet
On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would
please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)
I
On 19 Dec 2013, at 21:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
We don't assume QM.
If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable matter needs the
On 19 Dec 2013, at 21:36, John Mikes wrote:
Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play
'teleportation':
It is theoretical reasoning in the frame of an hypothesis making such
theorizing meaningful, unless you believe that comp is false. But then
you might have to argue
On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:26, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
1. Teleportation is survivable
Yes.
2.Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time
delay is imperceptible to the person teleported
Obviously.
3.
On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:46, Jason Resch wrote:
8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the
executions of all programs exist within the relations between large
numbers.
That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist,
and maybe that's the way things
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 all computations (an infinite object).
That
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 this computer
Yes, in fact it may have already
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
more true than the 1st person experience that an observer has.
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On 12/20/2013 10:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto: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
On 12/20/2013 11:18 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable
Hi Brent,
I know the difference. I am asking why? What if there is a UD related
process underlying the symmetry?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 11:18 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state. It's not so clear though how that is related to consciousness and
identity.
I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that
Dunno. If the UDA can show that the world must be made of indistinguishable particles and
they must obey either Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics, but not Maxwell-Boltzman
that would be fairly impressive.
Brent
On 12/20/2013 11:41 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
I know the
On 12/20/2013 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state. It's
not so clear though how that is related to consciousness and
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.
I provided all the information needed to be
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
Jason Resch will be at the intended destination.
Hi John,
Questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state. It's not so clear though how that is related to
On 12/20/2013 1:10 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi John,
Questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many
different version of the same software, no? I worry that we are treating
the mind and consciousness as a thing, as if we could hold it in our
hands, when we try to make sense of it.
THis may be a mistake...
On Fri, Dec
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many different
version of the same software, no? I worry that we are treating the mind and
consciousness as a thing, as if we could hold it in our hands, when we try to make
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many
different version of the same software, no? I worry that we are
Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum?
Brent
On 12/20/2013 2:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King
Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise!
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?
Brent
On 12/20/2013 2:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20,
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 ridiculous it would
be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by
someone somewhere.
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. I learned those figments in college
and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility
(agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical
results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory
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? If it is all in our
heads, what does that say about Arithmetic Realism? I am trying to get back
to some basic concepts...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM, LizR
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto: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
The inverse square law is true in Platonia. In the real world it's just a
very good approximation.
How do you know this is true?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King
On 12/20/2013 3:42 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. I learned those figments in college and applied
in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and
its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my
On 18 Dec 2013, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction,
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that,
but John Clark would maintain
On 18 Dec 2013, at 21:29, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2013 08:05, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked
pieces from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you erased the
following questions:
Bruno: The question is: is
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences into
account
The not a ?? For the third time please say how many first person
experiences exist on planet Earth right now
Locally, 7 billions of
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us
in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)
I have not read step 4, however if it is built on
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us
in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
John Clark: (No answer,
I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
Richard
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18,
Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never
substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
explanations.
Wana play? be my guest.
In a 'transportation' (cf:
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 substantiated and placed into circumstances never
substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
Hi Roger,
No, QM allows teleportation so 1) and 2) are already shown (in the case
of atoms) to be possible. What QM disallows is 3) - 5), which makes the
rest of the steps subject to debate. I wish that Bruno could run his UD
argument without any discussion of teleportation.
As I see things,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Teleportation is survivable
Yes.
2.Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is
imperceptible to the person teleported
Obviously.
3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:26 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Teleportation is survivable
Yes.
2.Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is
imperceptible to the person
On 12/19/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Roger,
No, QM allows teleportation so 1) and 2) are already shown (in the case of atoms) to
be possible. What QM disallows is 3) - 5), which makes the rest of the steps subject to
debate.
The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the
On 17 Dec 2013, at 15:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Truth. Truth =/= Proof.
Ummm, as I see things: Proof =
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2013 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Dec 2013, at 00:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 2:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 10:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Is that another way of saying you don't think Arithmetical
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Dec 2013, at 02:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical
On 18 Dec 2013, at 00:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2013 11:39 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 December 2013 07:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But I don't have to believe true=exists.
It seems to me this parallels your comment that the difference
between maths and matter is that we can
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Acording to Bruno Marchal's terminology you will see only one city
and one city only; and you will see both Washington and Moscow;
therefore Bruno Marchal's terminology is inconsistent in the one pee, two
pee, three
2013/12/18 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Acording to Bruno Marchal's terminology you will see only one city
and one city only; and you will see both Washington and Moscow;
therefore Bruno Marchal's terminology is
On 18 Dec 2013, at 01:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/17/2013 4:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I'll favor it as soon as it provides some surprising but
empirically true predictions - the same standard as for every other
On 18 Dec 2013, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
It's Bruno Marchal not John Clark who throws around personal
pronouns like confetti in philosophical discussions about personal
identity.
You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction, and
when you do, concludes trivial,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction,
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but
John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of
the
For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked pieces
from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you erased the following
questions:
Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in
answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
John Clark: (No
On 19 December 2013 08:05, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked
pieces from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you erased the
following questions:
Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would
Hi LizR,
I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with
Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and
interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's
theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with
Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and
interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the
mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune
from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build
bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of
the
On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the
mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune
from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the
mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are
On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to
On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's
assumptions: There is no explanation for how
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King
Kevin Knuth's talk: http://pirsa.org/10050054/
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi
On 19 December 2013 12:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with
Bruno's assumptions: There
On 12/18/2013 3:16 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any
frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a
view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is
Calling a sequential ordering of events time does not make a sequence of
events spring into being. It may in our heads but the physical world
doesn't work that way... Time would emerge right along with space from
interactions between events. We do not need to specify the space and time
before
On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to
...perform
a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make
ourselves believe that we can know all that there is to
On 12/18/2013 3:51 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Calling a sequential ordering of events time does not make a sequence of events spring
into being.
?? Calling a large grey pachyderm an elephant does not make a large grey pachyderm spring
into being either - but on the other hand it was already
On 19 December 2013 12:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Calling a sequential ordering of events time does not make a sequence of
events spring into being. It may in our heads but the physical world
doesn't work that way... Time would emerge right along with space from
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the
mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune
from my critique.
Special Relativity leaves no room for this,
Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite
dimensional Hilbert space? Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries
and other tricks) all of the infinite dimensions except some finite subset,
but that is the act that introduces the bias that I am pointing at! The
On 19 December 2013 13:24, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this: If there were two present moments one day apart, that
moved along in parallel, would you have any way of knowing? Then what if
there were a million co-moving presents? Then what if all present moment's
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to
...perform
a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways
On 12/18/2013 4:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite dimensional
Hilbert space?
Sure.
Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries and other tricks) all of the infinite
dimensions except some finite subset,
You can
On 19 December 2013 13:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but
Hi Brent,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/18/2013 4:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite
dimensional Hilbert space?
Sure.
Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries
On 16 Dec 2013, at 19:30, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said you confuse indeterminacy (the general vague
concept) with the many different sort of indeterminacy:
1) by ignorance on initial conditions (example: the coin), that is
On 16 Dec 2013, at 19:40, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
to judge the quality of the prediction about which cities the
Helsinki Man will see, you've got to hear what the Washington Man
has to say too if you want to know if the
On 16 Dec 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Dec 2013, at 17:04, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
you know in Helsinki that you will survive and feel to be in
only one city with
On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum worlds,
although Everett didn't write about multiple worlds. Everett only
considered
On 17 Dec 2013, at 00:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 2:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 10:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Is that another way of saying you don't think Arithmetical Realism
is correct? (Which is fair enough, of course, it is
a
On 17 Dec 2013, at 01:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
JKC makes a big point of the
On 17 Dec 2013, at 02:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical reality
than the physical reality. An evil demon could be responsible for
our belief in
On 17 Dec 2013, at 03:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Liz
My $.0001.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 14:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 17 Dec 2013, at 06:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 6:31 PM, LizR wrote:
Are you saying 17 may evolve to no longer be prime?
:)
Actually it did. It became a real and infinitely divisible.
You forget the smiley :)
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 17 Dec 2013, at 07:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was
On 17 Dec 2013, at 06:50, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I do not assume that computations can occur if there are no physical
means to implement them. My imagination that s 270 digit string is
prime is not equivalent to actually doing the computation that tests
for primeness.
Are you OK that
On 17 Dec 2013, at 07:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/16/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear LizR,
On 17 Dec 2013, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 10:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was your position, or at least (observer-centric),
in
On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:30, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 10:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum worlds,
although Everett
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:49 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 10:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:13 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 17:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
An observer in such a univer could never count to 17...
Did you know
Richard,
Interesting, is that correlated to the number of Planck volumes per cc, or
the Planck area of a sphere containing 1 cc or something else? How was
that number determined?
Jason
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason, String theory predicts
Jason,
According to Harvard Professor Yau, each Calabi-Yau compact manifold is
1000 Planck lengths in diameter.
from his book The Shape of Inner Space. To get 10^90 I assumed very close
packing..
The number of Planck volumes in a cc is about 10^100, in round numbers.
Richard
On Tue, Dec 17,
On 12/16/2013 11:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/16/2013 11:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 19:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I know. I was
I have 10 digits and 2^10 = 1024, so I can make any binary number from 0 to
1023 using my fingers, if I can either raise or lower each one
independantly (which is quite hard in practice). Of course using my toes as
well, I could count to over a million.
On 18 December 2013 05:08, Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Are you saying 17 may evolve to no longer be prime?
Yes! Consider a universe with only 16 objects in it.
OK there are only 16 objects in the universe, but those 16 objects can be
arranged into 2^16
On 12/17/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum worlds,
201 - 300 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
