Le 13-juil.-07, à 20:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to
Brent Meeker skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete
description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a
number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To get to the
current view of our universe you have
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a crit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't
Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting
and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of
'existence'.
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 09-juil.-07, 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a crit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David
I claim that our universe is the result of a finite set of rules. Just
as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the
GoL-rules...
--
Torgny Tholerus
What are your proofs or set
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
I claim that our universe is the result of a finite set of rules. Just
as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the
GoL-rules...
What are your proofs or
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
David Nyman skrev:
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always
static.
Then you must get very bored ;)
David
But I am not bored, because I don't know what will happen tomorrow. If
I look
On 10/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I am not bored
I'm glad to hear you're not a zombie after all :)
If I look at our universe from the outside
I'd like to know how you perform this feat.
I see that I will do something
tomorrow
I don't doubt it. But this is my
David Nyman skrev:
Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects.
It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe. One object
in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.
But we can look at the objects in an other universe. Just in the same
way
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 05-juil.-07, 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. The relation
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.
But we can look at the objects in an other universe.
I would say that the conjunction of the above two sentences is a contradiction.
Because
everything that
On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same
(Reposted because of some techical problems...)
On Jul 7, 2:00 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always
static.
Then you must get very bored ;)
David
On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes.
Even if a
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
interesting. But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the
same way.
I still disagree, but I
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TT: All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.
DN: But here at the heart of your
Jason skrev:
Note that you did not say thought was non-existent in B-universe, I
think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection
of a large number of simultaneous thoughts.
I had the intention to include thoughts, but I was unsure about how to
spell that word (where to
Your example suppose many things which are not granted to be possible:
1- The one who compare them is in neither of them... What is comparing
these universes ? a conscious being ?
2- The fact that they are identical implies that both have
consciousness. If one really lacked it then they would be
David Nyman skrev:
On 04/07/07, Stathis
Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes
A
and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.
DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate
sleight of
You're doing a giant step for considering current GoL as an
universe... but anyway you can, but it's not because you see one
glider in your tiny framed GoL that the interaction of billions of
cells does not generate a consciousness inside the GoL universe and
you as an external observer couldn't
On 04/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TT: You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the
gliders move. If you look at Conway's game of Life in Wikipedia, you
can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner. This is
possible although there
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as
the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second
Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.)
This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a
On 04/07/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TT: This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe.
DN: IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here. No universe
can look like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an
'observer' who is an embedded
30 matches
Mail list logo
