On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg
On Feb 29, 4:56 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that
the
observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation
On Feb 27, 6:40 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 27.02.2012 17:47 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no simulation of red. Red is only red.
But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no simulation of red. Red is only red.
But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic waves a length of 700
nanometers can produce the quale red in the minds of most (but not all)
human beings if it enters
On 27.02.2012 17:47 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no simulation of red. Red is only red.
But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic waves a length of
700 nanometers can produce the quale red in the
On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are
thinking that because you
Couple of Free Will studies:
Laypersons' belief in free will may foster a sense of thoughtful
reflection and willingness to exert energy, thereby promoting
helpfulness and reducing aggression, and so disbelief in free will may
make behavior more reliant on selfish, automatic impulses and
On 25 Feb 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote:
On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness,
On 2/26/2012 12:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote:
On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
I look at it like
On 26 Feb 2012, at 20:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/26/2012 12:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
Likewize Bp Dt, and Bp Dt p, are other important variants. I
will say more when I get more time, but by searching 'S4Grz' or
On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote:
On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness,
experience),
(Primitive) Matter, Mechanism.
Those 3 notions are incompatible, but we have
Hi Marty,
On 25 Feb 2012, at 01:51, marty684 wrote:
Why should probability depend on us; on what we 'know or cannot
know' ? On what is 'observable' to us? It seems to me that you are
defining probability by that which is relative to our 'actual
states'. Why can't we inhabit a
Thanks, I'll give it another shot. All the best, marty a.
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 25, 2012 5:05:35 AM
Subject: Re: The free will function
Hi Marty,
On 25 Feb 2012, at 01:51, marty684
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation
I don't know what you
On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote:
On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness,
experience),
(Primitive) Matter, Mechanism.
Those 3
On 2/25/2012 2:01 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote:
On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness,
On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
observers
On 2/21/2012 02:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:53 pm, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 18:37, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 20, 10:32 am,
acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness, experience),
(Primitive) Matter, Mechanism.
Those 3 notions are incompatible, but we have experience of all 3, mind is
the sum of our experience and thus is the most direct
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation
I don't know what you mean by subject to. They may well not
be able to
On 23 Feb 2012, at 15:12, marty684 wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:48:10 AM
Subject: Re: The free will function
On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote:
Bruno,
If everything is made of numbers
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 24, 2012 11:58:51 AM
Subject: Re: The free will function
On 23 Feb 2012, at 15:12, marty684 wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal marc
On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote:
Bruno,
If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP)
Nothing is made of. Everything appears in the mind of Universal
numbers relatively to universal numbers, with hopefully reasonable
relative statistics.
Think about a dream. If
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:48:10 AM
Subject: Re: The free will function
On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote:
Bruno,
If everything is made of numbers
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
simulation has no access to extra-simulatory information, it is a
complete sub-universe. It's logic is the
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
simulation has no access to extra-simulatory
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
simulation has no access to extra-simulatory
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why would Gods be supernatural?
Why would bachelors be married?
This is your argument, not mine. My whole point is that God becomes
On Feb 23, 3:51 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
That's because you aren't taking the simulation seriously.
Or because I am taking truth seriously.
Seriously and literally are two different things.
You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
observers
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why would Gods be supernatural?
Why would bachelors be married?
This is your
On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/21/2012 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Negative amplitude of probability comes from the formula p-[]p
satisfied by the sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (that is the UD).
How does that work?
By using a theorem of Goldblatt which shows that:
On 21 Feb 2012, at 19:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/21/2012 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 17:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Now comp makes almost all (not any) UMs' physics identical.
That is not a weak assumption.
Bruno,
If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP) which can express
states to an arbitrary degree of precision, is there any room for chance or
probability? And if so, how do they arise? (If you've been over this before,
please refer me to the relevant posts, thanks.)
On 2/22/2012 17:17, marty684 wrote:
Bruno,
If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP) which can express
states to an arbitrary degree of precision, is there any room for chance or
probability? And if so, how do they arise? (If you've been over this before,
please refer me to
On Feb 20, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
simulation or not.
I am sorry, but I think this is false. I would say that comp says that
we are in infinitely
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
..
On Feb 20, 5:38 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all kinds of Gods.
But then why did you say There is something that prevents infinite
nonsense
On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological
control means god or supernaural
You don't
On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all** (not any)
UMs' physics identical.
Note that there will still be an infinite variety of HP/WR physics
even
if it is a small
2012/2/21 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all** (not
any)
UMs' physics identical.
Note that there will still be an infinite variety
On 2/21/2012 5:41 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological
control means god or
On 20 Feb 2012, at 17:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg
On 21 Feb 2012, at 14:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/2/21 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all**
(not any)
UMs' physics identical.
On 2/21/2012 5:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I think that you are missing a point here. COMP is showing us how there is no
inherent bias on what we can believe ourselves to be, thus it is throwing open the
options. This is a good with with regards to Free Will for without the multiplicity
On 2/21/2012 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Negative amplitude of probability comes from the formula p-[]p satisfied by the
sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (that is the UD).
How does that work?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 2/21/2012 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 17:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On
On 2/21/2012 11:45 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/21/2012 5:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I think that you are missing a point here. COMP is showing us how
there is no inherent bias on what we can believe ourselves to be,
thus it is throwing open the options. This is a good with with
regards
On Feb 21, 5:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation.
No. True = true of unsimulated reality.
Where is there unsimulated reality in comp?
If I make a
simulation where
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are natural.
How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
simulation or not.
That doens't make you supernatural.
Why would I be? I'm not the administrator of a virtual universe.
You can fire a horse
On Feb 21, 8:03 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation.
No. True = true of unsimulated reality.
Where is
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
simulation or not.
That doens't make you supernatural.
Why would I be? I'm not the administrator of
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Believable falsehoods are falsehoods and convincing illusions
still aren't reality
It doesn't matter if they believe in the
On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm,
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If the physicists at CERN announced that all life including human life
was created by the Klogknee Field but didn't even attempt to explain how it
had done this miraculous thing would you be satisfied? I wouldn't be.
They
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all kinds of Gods.
But then why did you say There is something that prevents infinite
nonsense universes? How did you find this out, did you somehow check on
On Feb 20, 4:48 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
why do you think - if there are indeed many universes - that they are
identical and like ours?
It isn't a question of what I think.
There are different multiversal theories. Some say all
the universes are bound by a set of
On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Believable falsehoods are falsehoods and convincing illusions
still aren't
On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would Gods be supernatural?
Why would bachelors be married?
That's begging the question. There is no logical basis to
On 2/20/2012 18:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
..
Believable falsehoods are
On Feb 20, 2:48 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Sorry, I resend this because there was a little mistake:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why
On Feb 20, 2:53 pm, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 18:37, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 20, 10:32 am,
acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig
John,
On 18 Feb 2012, at 22:54, John Mikes wrote:
A bit from 'outside the box':
the 'religious' ideas emerged from the 'awe' how very ancient apes
looked at the world. It went through innumerable changes to reach a
tribe with writing skills and the Bible was established saving
positive
On Feb 18, 1:35 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not trying to explain how God did it though, it gets around that by
collapsing all whats and hows into a single overarching Who and Why.
Exactly, religion
On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
every particle
On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
every particle
On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of
On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
would
like to suggest that if MWI is
On 2/19/2012 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.comwrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
What you suggest in saying that no event can be known to be
supernatural is the same as saying that all video games would have to
have the same basic rules.
No all MWI have the same basic rules. MWI is an interpretation of
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?
Computaionalism or Bruno's comp?
--
You received this message because you are
On 2/20/2012 03:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If I am a simulation, and a programmer watches 'me' and can intervene
and change my program and the program of my universe at will, then to
me they are a true God, and I would be well advised to pray to them.
I think you might be misunderstanding
On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?
Computaionalism or Bruno's comp?
We have
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not trying to explain how God did it though, it gets around that by
collapsing all whats and hows into a single overarching Who and Why.
Exactly, religion takes everything we don't understand and puts it into a
box, it
A bit from 'outside the box':
the 'religious' ideas emerged from the 'awe' how very ancient apes looked
at the world. It went through innumerable changes to reach a tribe with
writing skills and the Bible was established saving positive attitudes of
the Super Naturals (whatever THEY were) as 'Good
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in
every particle interaction is realized in one parallel world/universe or
another,
On 2/18/2012 2:36 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to
suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum
mechanics, which is where every quantum state in every particle interaction is
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:36 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God
hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in understanding anything; it makes no
attempt at
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God
hypothesis is of no help
On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the
God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How
is that really different from the God hypothesis?
Neither can explain why there is something rather than nothing, but the
Evolution theory can explain how
On 2/17/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed,
On 2/17/2012 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is
On Feb 17, 3:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How
is that really different from the God hypothesis?
Neither can explain why there is something
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I see you defend the conception of God given by the Christians.
By God I mean an omnipotent being that created all the matter and energy
in the universe, and logic and mathematics and morality and everything
else; when I want to talk
Another comment on the paper: arXiv:1202.3395v1 [physics.hist-ph}
Ronald
On Feb 15, 10:27 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
can a virtual typhoon makes you wet?
I don't know, it depends on whether you are
On 14 Feb 2012, at 23:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All computers are
On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes. But it is science only as far as we present the theory in clear
hypothetical way.
The rest is pseudo-religion or insanity.
Or it could expand the scope of science.
There was progress before
science, so it is not true that
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
can a virtual typhoon makes you wet?
I don't know, it depends on whether you are in the same level of reality
as the typhoon. I do know for certain that a real typhoon can't make the
laws of physics wet because they exist at
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
run
the same loop over and over forever if you program them to
On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer
of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously.
Why would your subjective concerns matter
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
