Re: Something I just found out about crucifixion

Interesting. Have you seen this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Sixteen_Crucified_Saviors On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 06:19, John Clark wrote: > The earliest known depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus is a parody, it > is this graffiti drawn about the year 200 in the slave bathroom

Re: [Extropolis] Fwd: Sam Altman Wants $7 Trillion

Wronging the Nafs https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2017/02/wronging-self.html Lest we get carried away by the false promises of technology, the Quran warns us: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ ضُرِبَ مَثَلٌ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَن يَخْلُقُوا ذُبَابًا

Re: [Extropolis] Fwd: Sam Altman Wants $7 Trillion

*This is an extremely interesting video, it explains why Sam Altman was briefly fired from Open AI, why he needs $7 trillion, and gives a very interesting Alttman quote "Thought Experiment: at what rate would you be willing to borrow money to build a data center if extremely powerful AI is close

Re: [Extropolis] Fwd: Sam Altman Wants $7 Trillion

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM Keith Henson wrote: *> $7 Trillion is about $1000 from every person on earth. Not saying it > can't be done, but I think it will take a while.* > Well, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University, the estimated total price for the Iraq and

Re: On The Origin Of Time

I'd never heard of that called the Poincare effect either. Nor it seems does Wikipedia nor Google. IIUC, it is the phenomenon that after working fruitless on some problem for a while, taking a break, sleeping on it, etc might suddenly produce the solution. As I've often said - the 10 minutes

Re: On The Origin Of Time

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 6:17 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * >I'm surprised. * > Why? Neither google nor GPT knows what the "Poincaire' effect" is in I don't either. > > All mathematicians have experienced it, > That depends on what "it" is. Just tell me what you're talking about and why it

Re: On The Origin Of Time

I'm surprised.  All mathematicians have experienced it, but it's named after Poincare' because of this essay.  It's well worth reading all of it, but the relevant part is pp 326-329. https://archive.org/details/jstor-27900262/page/n9/mode/2up Brent On 2/2/2024 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On

Re: On The Origin Of Time

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 2:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > You must know about the Poincaire' effect* Nope, never heard of it. Do you mean the Poincaré conjecture? Or the Poincaré recurrence? Or do you mean something else entirely, the man did a lot of stuff. John K ClarkSee what's on my new

Re: On The Origin Of Time

You write that a lot, John.  But I don't think it's true.  You must know about the Poincaire' effect, which is actually common and is a direct contradiction of your theory. Brent On 2/2/2024 3:52 AM, John Clark wrote: I believe data processing is important because I think consciousness is

Re: [Extropolis] Experimental drug​ cuts off pain at the source not the brain avoiding addiction

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:08 PM Henrik Ohrstrom wrote: *> Everything that works causes some form of addiction. I myself for > example are quite addicted to my glasses and also oxygen.* > OK, but most people don't mind that they are addicted to those things but most junkies wish they weren't

Re: [Extropolis] Experimental drug​ cuts off pain at the source not the brain avoiding addiction

Everything that works causes some form of addiction. I myself for example are quite addicted to my glasses and also oxygen. I get severe withdrawal symptoms if I go cold turkey on those things. So talk about addiction or not is pointless. Of interest is side effects and effects, does the drug

Re: TSMC

On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 9:48 AM smitra wrote: > > > > > > *> It may well happen this year: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98kMSEkPiLo=2588s > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzSZusNq67M=1042s >

Re: TSMC

I've heard there was a plan to move TSMC and it's Taimanese workforce to Mexico or Costa Rica. Brent On 1/25/2024 12:50 PM, John Clark wrote: What is the most important company in the world? I think it's the Taiwan chipmaker TSMC because it manufactures 90% of the world's most advanced

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >* it supports the idea that philosophical zombies could not be produced > by natural (Darwinian) selection. But it say nothing about the possibility > that such beings could be produced artificially; eg. via AI.* > *> That is

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:10 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > it supports the idea that philosophical zombies could not be produced by > natural (Darwinian) selection. But it say nothing about the possibility > that such beings could be produced artificially; eg. via AI. But who made the AI? I don't

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > *There is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no > behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical > possibility of philosophical zombies.* Then it would be impossible, even in theory, to ever

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 10:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 17:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2024 9:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no behavioural

Re: Should The Future Be Human?

The Death of The Soul https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-death-of-soul.html > On 24-Jan-2024, at 8:16 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: > >  > The greatest loss that a person can suffer is the permanent loss of their > soul in the Hereafter (Q39:15-20). Such people will consciously

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 17:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 9:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no >>> behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical >>> possibility of

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 9:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical possibility of philosophical zombies. Some claim that phenomenal

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 15:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 7:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 2:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> Stathis

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:52:46PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > * > Who wrote this? you, JC?* > > > > No, Scott Alexander did, he's a pretty smart guy but I think he got some > things wrong. I did write this in the comments section: (...) >

Re: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 7:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: The greatest loss that a person can suffer is the permanent loss of their soul in the Hereafter (Q39:15-20 ). Such people will consciously suffer in Hell, neither living nor dying (Q35:36 ). In

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 7:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:23, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2024 2:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2024

Re: Should The Future Be Human?

The greatest loss that a person can suffer is the permanent loss of their soul in the Hereafter (Q39:15-20). Such people will consciously suffer in Hell, neither living nor dying (Q35:36). > On 24-Jan-2024, at 5:32 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >  > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > >> On

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 2:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 4:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:46 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > /T//here is yet another level, phenomenal

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 2:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote:

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 11:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:46 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> >>> > *T**here is yet another

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:46 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> > *T**here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no >>> behavioural manifestations

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > *T**here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no >> behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical >> possibility of philosophical

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > *T**here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no > behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical > possibility of philosophical zombies.* Assuming that is true and assuming that you yourself

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Stathis Papaioannou On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote:

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote: // /> Who wrote this?  you, JC?/ No, Scott Alexander did, he's a

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > * > Who wrote this? you, JC?* >> > > No, Scott Alexander did, he's a pretty smart guy but I think he got some > things wrong. I did

Re: Should The Future Be Human?

Scott Alexander Siskind, the Psychiatrist? More to the point of the nature O' consciousnesses is Stephon Alexander, the physicist at Brown University.  Home | Alexander Theory Lab (stephonalexanderlab.com)  The Autodidactic Universe - NASA/ADS (harvard.edu) OR, physicist, Vitaly Vanchurin at

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote: // /> Who wrote this?  you, JC?/ No, Scott Alexander did, he's a pretty smart guy but I think he got some things wrong. I did write this in the comments section: "You say "If we’re

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > Who wrote this? you, JC?* > No, Scott Alexander did, he's a pretty smart guy but I think he got some things wrong. I did write this in the comments section: "You say "If we’re lucky, consciousness is a basic feature of information

Re: Trump's pal Putin wants Alaska back

OK, but he has to take Sarah Palin too. Brent On 1/23/2024 2:59 AM, John Clark wrote: Trump's Best friend Vladimir Putin, not to be confused with his love interest Kim Jong Un, wants Alaska back : Russian Plot to Reclaim Alaska

Re: Fwd: Should The Future Be Human?

Who wrote this?  you, JC? It takes the question to be binary.  When humans came to the Americas, they didn't kill all the monkeys.  AI's can merge perfectly well with humans.  Imagine having an actually intelligent ChatGPT wired into your brain adivising and influencing your decisions, like

Re: What company is putting the most emphasis on AI?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > * > Apple makes it's own chips for it's computer, the Apple M2 for example > which has equivalent power to mid-range consumer Nvidia graphic chips. > Maybe they even have specific internal versions for running AI > models. Google also makes

Re: The physical limits of computation

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 9:37 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > *> His* [Shannon's] *measure of information is relative to a channel and > depends on the counterfactual number of messages that could be sent. > You're presuming that each letter could have been one of 25 other letters. > But there are only

Re: The physical limits of computation

On 1/21/2024 5:40 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 7:03 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >>> /If I write "tamaontietoa" is it information or gibberish?  Is it about something? / >> There's no reason it couldn't be both, Shannon would say it's definitely

Re: The physical limits of computation

could motivate the > imaginary-time path integral directly and insightfully, rather than > indirectly through the apparatus of energy eigenvalues, Boltzmann factors, > and so forth, then one would have progressed toward this general prediction > of unification: Fundamental action principles,

Re: The physical limits of computation

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 7:03 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >>> * If I write "tamaontietoa" is it information or gibberish? Is it >> about something? * >> > > >> There's no reason it couldn't be both, Shannon would say it's > definitely information, > > * >No he wouldn't.* > Of course Shannon

Re: The physical limits of computation

On 1/21/2024 12:00 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 2:31 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > /If I write "tamaontietoa" is it information or gibberish?  Is it about something? / There's no reason it couldn't be both, Shannon would say it's definitely information, No he

Re: The physical limits of computation

On 1/21/2024 5:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:27 PM Brent Meeker wrote: // /> The problem with this is that information, like complexity, has no physically definite operational meaning.  You can't go into the lab and ask what's the information content of

Re: The physical limits of computation

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 2:31 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > * If I write "tamaontietoa" is it information or gibberish? Is it > about something? * > There's no reason it couldn't be both, Shannon would say it's definitely information, but he doesn't care if that information contains a great

Re: The physical limits of computation

ld motivate the imaginary-time path integral directly and insightfully, rather than indirectly through the apparatus of energy eigenvalues, Boltzmann factors, and so forth, then one would have progressed toward this general prediction of unification: Fundamental action principles, and thu

Re: The physical limits of computation

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:27 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > The problem with this is that information, like complexity, has no > physically definite operational meaning. You can't go into the lab and ask > what's the information content of "this".* > In 1948 Claude Shannon gave us an operational

Re: The physical limits of computation

ctly through the apparatus of energy eigenvalues, Boltzmann factors, > > and so forth, then one would have progressed toward this general prediction > > of unification: Fundamental action principles, and thus the laws of > > physics, will be re-interpreted as statements about informati

Re: The physical limits of computation

d this general prediction of unification: Fundamental action principles, and thus the laws of physics, will be re-interpreted as statements about information and its transformations." http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735v1.pdf <https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1503.0

Re: The physical limits of computation

one would have progressed toward this general prediction of unification: Fundamental action principles, and thus the laws of physics, will be re-interpreted as statements about information and its transformations." http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735v1.pdf https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%

Re: The deification of Donald Trump

https://quran.com/az-zumar/53-59 > On 18-Jan-2024, at 3:47 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > >  God is all about punishment. > > Brent > >> On 1/17/2024 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote: >> God made Trump >> >> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis >> mtg >> >> -- >> You received

Re: The deification of Donald Trump

God is all about punishment. Brent On 1/17/2024 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote: *God made Trump* John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis mtg -- You received this message because you are

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

Long Life – Reversed in Creation https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2016/06/long-life-reversed-in-creation.html > On 09-Jan-2024, at 11:22 AM, LizR wrote: > > If you're always truthful, this post makes you immortal. > >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 09:09, John Clark wrote: >> >> One year

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

If you're always truthful, this post makes you immortal. On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 09:09, John Clark wrote: > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > One year ago I sent

Re: A question for Trump supporters

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:42 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > And it would be of huge benefit to the Republican party for Trump to be > disqualified. * > If Congress had convicted Trump in either of his impeachment trials he would've been disqualified from running for president again, and I'm sure if

Re: A question for Trump supporters

And it would be of huge benefit to the Republican party for Trump to be disqualified.  As it is, he's going to pull down some Congressional Repugs with him, just like he did in 2020.  The polls say Haley and DeSantis would both do better against Biden than does Trump. Brent On 1/6/2024 1:06

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

Emotion is the motivator. It depends on what you like? You may enjoy his trio of novels set in a Space Opera Milky Way, some 10 million years hence. With regular humans yet! Ness Sisters Novels set in the 10th Occupation.  SHADOW CAPTAIN (2019): the second book concerning the Ness sisters,

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

Thanks, this seems to be the truth as a I co-read Musser's new book as well as Porf. Goff's philosophy from U of Durham.  The giant Hopfield network may be the mind and we are not aware that it is fully aware. How'd we determine this? On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 06:56:57 AM EST, John

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 7:39 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> Philosophically. idea-wise, is what I mean, IF the Autodidactic Universe > is true, IF Vitaly Vanchurin's analysis is true, then it's all up to the > Big, Universe-Mind to

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 9:14 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: * > I'd go with Alastair Reynolds with just about anything he has written.* I read the first 70 or 80 pages of "Revelation Space" but then stopped, I just couldn't get into it.

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

Philosophically. idea-wise, is what I mean, IF the Autodidactic Universe is true, IF Vitaly Vanchurin's analysis is true, then it's all up to the Big, Universe-Mind to decide? Yes, JC, Panpsychism. If Mr. Big decides by MWI or some other computer means to create a trillion Meekers, that he

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 8:32 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> A soul is unique but information can be duplicated. > > > *> Not if it's quantum, i.e. in qubits,* > It's true that a qubit can't be duplicated (although it can be transported) but the thing that makes you be you must be conventional

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

On 12/26/2023 9:17 AM, John Clark wrote: We're sorry we created the Torment Nexus ... The soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information. But there are also important differences: A soul is

Re: Science-fiction author Charlie Stross

JC, Stross does have his own series of HP Lovecraft inspired novels which I found tasty-good over the last several years. Cynical and anti-religious which is why you may enjoy them. For hard scifi, I'd go with Alastair Reynolds with just about anything he has written. Also Stephen Baxter. 

Re: Black Hole ringing

So far no evidence of classical hair in this. LC On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:38:23 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: > Gravitational waves from mega black-hole collision reveal long-sought > ‘ringing’ > > John K ClarkSee what's on my

Re: Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 4:23 PM Brent Meeker wrote: * > 3.5 million years ago isn't that far away in geologic or even in > biologic time. I would think being irradiated by a kilonova would show up > a lot of other places besides a couple of isotopes in the crust.* > There was no mass

Re: Did a kilonova set off in our Galactic backyard 3.5 Myr ago?

3.5 million years ago isn't that far away in geologic or even in biologic time.  I would think being irradiated by a kilonova would show up a lot of other places besides a couple of isotopes in the crust. Brent On 12/12/2023 6:43 AM, John Clark wrote: Surprisingly the isotopes Iron-60 and

Re: The Singularity and Trump ( was The new quantum chip)

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 11:51 AM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: * > He won't start a war with Putin or China and he didn't try to.* > Trump says he will in the war in Ukraine on day one of his administration, which can only mean he will cut

Re: [Extropolis] The old Extropian List and Anders Sandberg

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:04 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: *> I never understood why Anders left the mailing list. It seems to me that > one day he was still posting, and the next day he wasn't. Did he ever say > why he was about to leave the list?* > As I remember it Anders didn't say anything

Re: [Extropolis] The old Extropian List and Anders Sandberg

I never understood why Anders left the mailing list. It seems to me that one day he was still posting, and the next day he wasn't. Did he ever say why he was about to leave the list? On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 9:59 PM John Clark wrote: > The British newspaper the Financial Times has an article

Re: The Singularity and Trump ( was The new quantum chip)

Trump as the big bastard never happened. Mein Kampf which I read as was the post war release successor volume was nothing like Don's checkered WH performance. He won't start a war with Putin or China and he didn't try to. You  are hopping we forget when Trump ordered US forces to fight back in

Re: The new quantum chip

On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 3:03 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> Adolf was a unknown in 1933.* > That is not true. Hitler wrote his book Mein Kampf in 1925 and by 1933 it had become a bestseller, in that book he clearly explained what he would

Re: Google's Gemini has dethroned GPT-4 as the top AI.

ver or wise) people are not always recognised as such by their contemporaries (quite possibly, many are never recognised, because their words are let go and forgotten, so cannot be later recalled and re-evaluated). Since so many contemporaries recognise Chad Gepettos as intelligent, what does it say a

Re: The new quantum chip

Adolf was a unknown in 1933. It was the Great Depression meaning very high, continuous, unemployment. You know that! Trump is a known, known. You know what he will do, and that is spend his presidency mouthing off. Your point that he is fearful to you simply means that in 2028 your guys will

Re: The new quantum chip

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 8:44 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > * You weren't rounded up, and sent to a camp during 2017-Jan 2021 were > ya? Will he do that now because he's dumb? Maybe, but I doubt it. [...] I > claim that they will moderate

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:36 PM LizR wrote: *> * > > *Wasn't something similar said about atoms? (Not that this is proof, more > a "they laughed at Copernicus, and now they're laughing at me, so I must be > right too" sort of argument).* As far as the existence of atoms are concerned, chemists

Re: The new quantum chip

Last point first. You weren't rounded up, and sent to a camp during 2017-Jan 2021 were ya? Will he do that now because he's dumb? Maybe, but I doubt it. Will he lash out at George Soros? About damn time. His Daughter and his Son in law will have his ear, so save your worry about a nuclear war

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Wasn't something similar said about atoms? (Not that this is proof, more a "they laughed at Copernicus, and now they're laughing at me, so I must be right too" sort of argument). But as (or if) I understand it, multiverses are speculations that reduce problems elsewhere. To loosely quote Max

Re: Watch "Can Many Worlds Solve The Measurement Problem?" on YouTube

On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 5:40 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > A split into a finite number of worlds would solve the measure problem but > where did he get his finite number? My guess is he is using something like the number of distinguishable quantum states given by the Bekenstein bound, or the total

Re: Watch "Can Many Worlds Solve The Measurement Problem?" on YouTube

A split into a finite number of worlds would solve the measure problem but where did he get his finite number? And why are physicists like Tegmark and Greene still talking about the measure problem if the number is finite? On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:52:31 PM UTC+1 Jason Resch wrote: >

Re: Watch "Can Many Worlds Solve The Measurement Problem?" on YouTube

On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 7:24 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > But isn't there a problem when the number of worlds after the split is > infinite? In popular science books they always write that if the number of > worlds is infinite then there are different ways of counting the > probabilities and so we can

Re: Watch "Can Many Worlds Solve The Measurement Problem?" on YouTube

But isn't there a problem when the number of worlds after the split is infinite? In popular science books they always write that if the number of worlds is infinite then there are different ways of counting the probabilities and so we can arrive at different probabilities than those given by

Re: The new quantum chip

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 6:39 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> In the last few years, you predicted a revolution, societally, once we > hit the heights in successfully entangled, quantum operations. Have you > changed your mind since this

Re: The new quantum chip

In the last few years, you predicted a revolution, societally, once we hit the heights in successfully entangled, quantum operations. Have you changed your mind since this prediction?  On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 03:21:46 PM EST, John Clark wrote: Apparently IBM has hardwired a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.* >> > > It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing > the accuracy of Wikipedia I know that

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.* > It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing the accuracy of Wikipedia I know that I've backed him into a corner and he's desperate. Would it

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:11 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >>> >>> >> But what about an orange? If

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one >>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >>> >> >> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even >> know if "orange" is a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:27 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one >> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >> > > But what about an orange? If you're not a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one > apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* > But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even know if "orange" is a noun or an

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:18 AM smitra wrote: > On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > That doesn't seem to get rid of probability. How will you empirically > > confirm that you need less information to specify X than Y. You will > > still need frequentist statistics. > > That's true

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/23/2023 10:38 PM, smitra wrote: On 23-11-2023 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/23/2023 2:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but our measuring

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to >> be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space >> (Gleason's theorem). So in a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to > be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space > (Gleason's theorem). So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of > interpretation. > >

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space (Gleason's theorem).  So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of interpretation. QBism, which is a version of CI+decoherence is at least as

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Mermin and Hartle wrote about "Now" https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/3/8/1017354/Commentary-What-I-think-about-Now? https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/9/8/414845/Classical-and-quantum-framing-of-the-Now? https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403001 -- You received this

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:16 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical and >> philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is something >> called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities and nobody can >> even

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >