On 28 Nov 2012, at 17:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/28/2012 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The question though is how does that happen?
Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't know
why and how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of
math in physics. With
On 30 Nov 2012, at 20:08, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Richard,
On 28 Nov
On 30 Nov 2012, at 16:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Richard,
On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic?
Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable
Richard,
On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic?
Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to come from
arithmetic if comp is true and my reasoning correct.
Bruno
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Richard,
On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
On Friday, November 30, 2012 2:08:34 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
Bruno,
Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Nov 2012, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig
On 11/28/2012 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The question though is how does that happen?
Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't know why and how electron
obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math in physics. With comp there is only math
(arithmetic) and from
On 28 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:29:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things
interface with logic - how do they know the logic is there, how
On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 26 Nov 2012, at 17:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/23/2012 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How does the comparison occur? I will not ask what or who is
involved, only how. What means exists to compare and contrast a
pair of logics?
The logic exists, because, by UDA, when translated in
On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things interface with logic
- how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, and through what capacity
can they express that obedience?
It's the other way around. Language
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:29:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things
interface with logic - how do they know the logic is there, how do they
'obey' it, and through what capacity
On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
How exactly does the comparison occur?
By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from observation (the
quantum logic based on the algebra of the
On 11/23/2012 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How does the comparison occur? I will not ask what or who is involved, only how.
What means exists to compare and contrast a pair of logics?
The logic exists, because, by UDA, when translated in arithmetic, makes a relative
physical certainty
On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
How exactly does the comparison occur?
By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from observation
(the
On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
How exactly does the comparison occur?
On 22 Nov 2012, at 00:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen
On 11/22/2012 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Nov 2012, at 00:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On
the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-20, 11:56:31
Subject: Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation
On 20 Nov 2012, at 03:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-20, 11:56:31
Subject: Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett
Interpretation
On 20 Nov 2012, at 03:52, Stephen P. King wrote
On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this
On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What I am asking is why does the idea of a multiverse help explain why
any
one universe exists in the first place.
This could be one of two
On 20 Nov 2012, at 03:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
1) Why a universe, given a multiverse. A universe is the internal (ie
1p) view of the multiverse.
Why does a multiverse need an internal view?
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
1) Why a universe, given a multiverse. A universe is the internal
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:23:55PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why does a multiverse need an internal view? Especially since our
experience
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then
gives rise to an illusion of a single
On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities'
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that
On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:23:14 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be
thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the
argument
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What I am asking is why would the single multiverse be any less dependent
upon multiplicity to accomplish its infinities of preserved separations
than a single universe does? If a universe needs a multiverse to justify
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:16:53PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
which is the Occam's catastrophe redux I point
out in my book.
I suspect that as human beings, we rank amongst the simplest of all
possible observers.
Do you think that
On 11/19/2012 4:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:12:33PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm postulating infinite regress because the idea that universes are being
created and preserved implies an meta-universal support which also must be
made of some kind of
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What I am asking is why does the idea of a multiverse help explain why any
one universe exists in the first place.
This could be one of two different questions, both of which are
evrything-list 101:
1) Why a universe, given a
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:48:14PM -0600, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/19/2012 4:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
What does this even mean? Anyone else know?
It means Craig is a wordbot? :-)
Brent
:)
--
Prof Russell
On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01:49PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
In a recent paper entitled
“Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation”:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447
Jan-Markus Schwindt has presented an impressive argument against the
many-world interpretation of
On 18 Nov 2012, at 09:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01:49PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
In a recent paper entitled
“Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation”:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447
Jan-Markus Schwindt has presented an impressive
Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be
thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the
argument is simply that in order to make universes separate, you would need
a whole other information architecture (which would also have to be
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be
thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the
argument is simply that in order to make universes separate, you would need
a whole
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then
gives rise to an illusion of a single classical reality; I just
phrase the concepts
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:01:20 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
I suspect that as human beings, we rank amongst the simplest of all
possible observers.
why?
Craig
Prof Russell Standish
Application of the Occam's razor theorem to Anthropic Selection. See
Section 5.1 of my book Theory of Nothing.
Cheers
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 06:59:52PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:01:20 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
I suspect that as human beings, we
On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then
gives rise to an illusion of a single
On 11/18/2012 11:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
To Russell,
Maybe you are right but thinking of it backwards
That I meant by this is that it is our ability to know that we are
conscious that allows us to think about that consciousness is and ask
questions like could other entities be
On 4/21/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent wrote: It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen
from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes
seen from the inside.
They can be both, but UDA shows that this leads to a reduction of
physics to arithmetic.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary that the
candidate takes with him in the teleportation or duplication experiments.
The 3-views are corresponding to what is roughly described by an external
On 21 Apr 2012, at 18:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 4/21/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent wrote: It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen
from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain
processes seen from the inside.
They can be both, but UDA shows that
On 21 Apr 2012, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary
that the candidate takes with him in the teleportation or
duplication experiments. The 3-views are
On 19 Apr 2012, at 19:04, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi David,
I attach a comment by Victor Stenger on Lawrence Krauss's A Universe
from Nothing. You might also want to follow the link to David
Albert's critical review. Is it meaningful to speak of a nothing
beyond the void of RQFT? Or beyond
On 19 Apr 2012, at 22:04, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem
Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest part of the mind
body problem is figuring out what the hell the problem
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
fortunately they use things other than mind to explain how mind works.
Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation
explains only the behavior.
Only?! However unfortunate it may be the fact remains that
2012/4/20 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
fortunately they use things other than mind to explain how mind works.
Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation
explains only the behavior.
Only?! However
On 20 Apr 2012, at 17:28, John Clark wrote:
I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences
between various increasingly convoluted views and yet you can't
give a single example of two things being identical by what you call
the 3-view but not by the 1-views
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences
between various increasingly convoluted views and yet you can't give a
single example of two things being identical by what you call the 3-view
but not by
On 20 Apr 2012, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences
between various increasingly convoluted views and yet you can't
give a single example of two things
On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2012, at 22:04, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem
Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest
Hi David,
I attach a comment by Victor Stenger on Lawrence Krauss's A Universe
from Nothing. You might also want to follow the link to David
Albert's critical review. Is it meaningful to speak of a nothing
beyond the void of RQFT? Or beyond the truths of arithmetic?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem
Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest part of the mind body
problem is figuring out what the hell the problem is. The religious
demand a explanation of mind, by
David: when I first tried to make sense of the 'world' (that was after
retirement and ~200 recently issued books on advanced 'thoughts') I started
with an 'ode':
In the Beginning there was Nothingness and when Nothingness realized it's
Nothingness, it changed. becoming a Somethingness. - The rest
Stathis writes
Lee Corbin writes:
I anticipate that in the future it will, as you say so well,
be shown that appropriate brain states necessarily lead to
conscious states, except I also expect that by then the
meaning of conscious states will be vastly better informed
and filled-out
Lee Corbin writes:
But we *still* don't know what it feels like to *be* the code
implemented on a computer.
We might be able to guess, perhaps from analogy with our own
experience, perhaps by running the code in our head; but once
we start doing either of these things, we are replacing
Le 25-mai-05, à 13:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Lee Corbin writes:
But we *still* don't know what it feels like to *be* the code
implemented on a computer.
We might be able to guess, perhaps from analogy with our own
experience, perhaps by running the code in our head; but once
we
Le 24-mai-05, à 14:03, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Yes, but I don't think that there is any answer to the hard problem.
Concretely, I conjecture that of the 10^5000 or so possible strings
of 5000 words in the English language, not a single one of them solves
this problem.
And in French ?;)
Lee Corbin writes:
[quoting Stathis]
I would still say that even if it could somehow
be shown that appropriate brain states necessarily lead to conscious
states,
which I suspect is the case, it would still not be clear how this comes
about, and it would still not be clear what this is
Lee Corbin wrote:
A friend sends me this link:
http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html
which will perhaps be of interest to a number of people here.
But the familiar first sentence just sends me into orbit:
The hard problem of consciousness, according to
David
Bruno writes
Do you imagine that it's possible that we could go to
another star, and encounter beings who discoursed with
us about every single other thing, yet denied that they
had consciousness, and professed that they had no idea
what we were talking about? Yes or No! I want an
Dear Lee,
Are we not dancing around the Turing Test here?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!
Bruno writes
Do you
On 22 May 2004 at 6:26, george wrote:
As a novice lurker on this list:
You have given me an opening.
The universe is infinite in time and space. That's the only logical
way for it to be. You must agree. How could it arise from nothingness.
Altho appearing random, every effect has a
Fine, you are trying to provide a path for the creation, or a rational for
the existence, of the Plenitude. You describe the Superverse as an enormous
fractal of possible machines. But nowhere do you discuss some of the most
important question, in my view, the perception of the self and the
My current approach to this.
Once Nothing becomes Everything to answer its own stability, the question
of the stability of Nothing is no longer meaningful to Everything neither
is Nothing? itself, so Everything is now stuck as Everything.
Hal
73 matches
Mail list logo
