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 prove that mathematical truths are true
(or words to that effect - sorry posting in
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
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical reality than the
On 12/17/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Yes, but why are you being
On 18 December 2013 07:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 11:44 PM, LizR wrote:
Probably not. Just that a very big number like 10^80 is effectively
divisible by any small number, since the remainder can be neglected.
Well, that will certainly help anyone who is trying
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
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Is that another way of saying you don't think Arithmetical Realism is
On 12/17/2013 7:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:43 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 10:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
...
Instead of concluding only that the only thing he could prove is that
he
On 12/17/2013 8:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:49 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto: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
On 12/17/2013 8:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think there may be a confusion of what I am suggesting. Let's say there is some
integer N, so large it cannot be described by anyone in this universe. What I am saying
is that exactly one of the following two statements is true:
N is prime, N is not
On 12/17/2013 11:39 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 December 2013 07:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 prove that
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/17/2013 8:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
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
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/17/2013 8:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think there may be a confusion of what I am suggesting. Let's say there
is some integer N, so large it cannot be described by anyone in this
universe. What I am saying is that
On 12/17/2013 4:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto: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 theory.
What
On 12/17/2013 4:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/17/2013 8:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think there may be a confusion of what I am suggesting. Let's say there
is some
integer N,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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 probability one
That depends, Is You the Helsinki Man or the Moscow Man or the
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 a 3p
indeterminacy.
2) Turing form of
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 prediction was correct;
Yes. And in the step 3
On 17 December 2013 07:30, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What doesn't make sense about number 4 (the MWI explanation of
indeterminacy) ?
It adds nothing to number 3,
It adds a better explanation to number 3, and
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
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
you know in Helsinki that you will survive and feel to be in
only one
city with
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 one world and wrote about the relative state of the observer
and the observed
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,
although Everett
didn't write about multiple worlds. Everett only considered one world
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 didn't write about multiple worlds.
On 12/16/2013 1:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 10:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
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
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 supposition.)
Yes. I think it is a questionable hypothesis.
Yes, I think so too on days with an 'R' in
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 complete separation of quantum worlds,
although Everett didn't write about multiple
On 12/16/2013 2:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 10:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 supposition.)
Yes. I think it is
On 12/16/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 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:
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
atoms, and stars, and photons, etc., but it is may be impossible for that
same demon
On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 atoms, and
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 wrote:
In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical reality than
the physical reality. An evil demon could be
On 12/16/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 14:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a sense, one
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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:
Amen to that, Brent!
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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 wrote:
In a sense, one can be more certain
Are you saying 17 may evolve to no longer be prime?
:)
--
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
Hi Liz,
Yes! Consider a universe with only 16 objects in it.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying 17 may evolve to no longer be prime?
:)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List
On 17 December 2013 15:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Liz,
Yes! Consider a universe with only 16 objects in it.
What about it?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 17 December 2013 15:33, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
My point, such as it is, is that we can use the same maths for both the
Newtonian domain in which things behave roughly according to common sense
Hi LizR,
For example, the commutator that relates observables to each other is
different. The statistical relations that can be used to accurately model
experimental data is different. Most importantly, the ontologies are very
different.
Classical physics allows a Laplacean observer to exist,
An observer in such a univer could never count to 17...
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 15:34, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Liz,
Yes! Consider a universe with only 16 objects in it.
What about it?
--
You
On 12/16/2013 6:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
You asked where does the unreasonable effectiveness come from. Maybe I
should have
asked what you thought Wigner was referring to. I don't think he was
There couldn't be an observer in such a universe, it's far too simple. But
if there was one, he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and
work out its properties.
On 17 December 2013 15:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
An observer in such a univer could never
On 17 December 2013 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't see that it follows. Just like Shannon's information and
Boltzmann's entropy, the domains are very much related so it's no surprise
that we can carry over some math developed for Newtonian physics and apply
it to quantum
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an
observer in such a universe, it's far too simple. There could not be one
wherefore he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work out
its properties is impossible: probability zero.
We could never
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an
observer in such a universe, it's far too simple. There could not be one
wherefore he could deduce the existence of 17
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Liz,
Yes! Consider a universe with only 16 objects in it.
Our observable universe has less than 10^100 things in it, yet the HTTPS
connection to my mail server relied on prime numbers of many hundreds
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 you can count up to 1023 on your fingers? I'll leave it as an
exercise to figure out how. ;-)
Jason
--
You received this message
Dear LirZ,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an
observer in such a universe, it's far too simple.
On 12/16/2013 6:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
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.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 12/16/2013 6:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I don't see that it follows. Just like Shannon's information and
Boltzmann's
entropy, the domains are very much related so it's no surprise that we can
In finite time and with a finite minimal action? NO!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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.
Brent
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear LirZ,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I
Observables, in general, have been shown to not commute, contra the
Classical assumptions of observables.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 6:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't see
No, your making the mistake of identifying a representation of a thing with
the thing. The symbol 10^80 does not have 10^80 components, so to act as it
is does...
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 6:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb
On 12/16/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an
observer in
such a universe, it's far too
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
No, your making the mistake of identifying a representation of a thing
with the thing. The symbol 10^80 does not have 10^80 components, so to act
as it is does...
Tell me this, is the following (270 digit)
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.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be
an observer in
So you are arguing that doing the computations is what makes a number prime
or not?
When does the number first become prime, is it when the first person
anywhere in the universe checks it? What about people beyond the
cosmological horizon that compute it, or what about people in hypothetical
On 12/16/2013 9:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 6:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric? If there can exist a physical
process that is a bisimulation of the computation of the test for
primeness, then the primeness is true. Otherwise, we are merely guessing,
at best.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto: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
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 that
numbers only have properties when observed/checked/computed by some entity
somewhere.
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
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was your position, or at least (observer-centric), in that
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 9:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 6:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, meekerdb
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
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was your position, or
I agree with Jason!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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
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 your position, or at least (observer-centric), in
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.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Yes, but why are you being
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
I agree with Jason!
Great :-)
Now all I need to do is convince you that 17 is prime without anyone having
to compute and confirm that fact, and then you will have an explanation for
why you believe you are
On 12/16/2013 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto: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
stephe...@provensecure.com
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 you can count up to 1023 on your fingers? I'll leave it as
an
On 17 December 2013 18:06, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LirZ,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted
On 17 December 2013 19:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I know. I was just taking 10^80 to mean a very big number which of
course depends on context. I generally do applied physics and engineering
and so 10^80+1 = 10^80 for physical variables.
That reminds me of a joke...
...but
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 just taking 10^80 to mean a very big number which of
course depends
on context. I generally do applied physics and engineering and so 10^80+1
On 17 December 2013 19:06, 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
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was your position, or at least
On 17 December 2013 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 11:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 19:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I know. I was just taking 10^80 to mean a very big number which of
course depends on context. I generally do applied
Jason, String theory predicts that there may be as much as 10^90 Calabi-Yau
compact manifold per cc. Richard
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Liz,
Yes!
On 14 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse the 3-view on the 1-views,
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
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 probability one
That depends, Is You the Helsinki Man or the Moscow Man or the
Washington Man or John K Clark?
They are the same man,
On 16 December 2013 05:04, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As I said you confuse indeterminacy (the general vague concept) with
the many different sort of indeterminacy:
1) by ignorance on initial conditions
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 December 2013 05:04, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As I said you confuse indeterminacy (the general vague concept) with
the many different
On 16 December 2013 11:16, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 December 2013 05:04, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:
As I said you confuse
On 13 Dec 2013, at 22:31, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
One told me: I see in my diary that I predicted (in Helsinki)
that I would be at both places, but I see now that this was wrong
I predicted? In such a situation that
On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:44, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:22 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or
believe in first-person
On 13 Dec 2013, at 17:22, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or
believe in first-person indeterminancy,
But I do believe in and understand first-person indeterminacy, in
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
As liz summarized, you went from that's wrong! to that's obvious!
As I've said before Bruno's ideas are original and true, but unfortunately
the original ones are not true and the true ones are not original.
John K
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
As liz summarized, you went from that's wrong! to that's obvious!
As I've said before Bruno's ideas are original and true, but unfortunately
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse the 3-view on the 1-views,
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 earth who is confused by the difference
On 15 December 2013 07:50, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse the 3-view on the 1-views,
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but
John Clark would maintain that there is not a
On 12 Dec 2013, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/12/2013 12:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds,
On 12 Dec 2013, at 22:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In Everett it's always obvious who I'm talking about when I use
the personal pronoun you, it's the only other fellow in the room
with me; but in Bruno's thought
On 12 Dec 2013, at 22:45, Jason Resch wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or believe
in first-person indeterminancy, refer him to his own post where he
admitts to understanding it and believing in it:
On 12 Dec 2013, at 23:58, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 10:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In Everett it's always obvious who I'm talking about when I use
the personal pronoun you, it's the only other
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or believe in
first-person indeterminancy,
But I do believe in and understand first-person indeterminacy, in fact it
was without question the very first thing that
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I *do *know who I am in the first person,
But there is no reason to believe that the knowledge you're talking about
is in principle unique; the copying machine can duplicate the first person
view just as easily as anything else.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:22 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or believe in
first-person indeterminancy,
But I do believe in and understand
On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:22 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or
believe in first-person indeterminancy,
But I do believe in and understand
301 - 400 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
