harlie) and the
output (Alice) of the proposed counterfactual logic gate are not within the
same station but rather separated in three different locations. We show
that there is no need to pre-arrange entanglement for the gate, and more
importantly, there is no real physical particles traveling among Alic
Bruno et al:
I think *"definiteness"* is always counterfactual since it *MUST* deny the
potential influences from unknown factors (domains, a/effects, even some
definitely counterfactual influences we do not recognize as such at all).
It is a consequence of our agnostic view (as I
On 16 Apr 2016, at 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 16/04/2016 12:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2016, at 14:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It is interesting that you have not answered my question about
what exactly you mean by 'counterfactual definiteness' so that we
know what you mean
On 16/04/2016 12:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2016, at 14:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It is interesting that you have not answered my question about what
exactly you mean by 'counterfactual definiteness' so that we know
what you mean when you say that a theory is not counterfactually
Peter Jones writes:
Physical determinism is the idea that the
future is genrated form the persent by rigid physical
laws. As opposed to the idea that the future is fixed
becasue it is already there, like the end of a movie
which is already in the can , and need not bear any logical
Peter Jones writes:
But is there any sense in which we as humans are any more free than
billiard
balls or dice beyond the fact that we *feel* we are free?
There may be. For instance, freedom might be a combination of
indeterminism and rational self-control.
I have a strong feeling
Le 31-août-06, à 12:59, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
But is there any sense in which we as humans are any more free than
billiard
balls or dice beyond the fact that we *feel* we are free? I have a
strong feeling
that my free will is not randomness and not determinism: is there
Peter Jones writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes:
Peter:
... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
reason why we should be conscious of in things
we coudl have done but didn't. ...
JM
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter Jones writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes:
Peter:
... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
reason why we should be conscious of in things
we coudl
John Mikes writes:
Peter:
... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
reason why we should be conscious of in things
we coudl have done but didn't. ...
JM:
It could not have happened in another way if it did happen
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes:
Peter:
... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
reason why we should be conscious of in things
we coudl have done but didn't. ...
JM:
It could not have happened
of a Multiverse), consisting of unlimited
and unlimitedly different universes. We just cannot
think otherwise. (Maybe some of us can on this list).
John Mikes
John M
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes:
Peter:
... A counterfactual
.
If the mathematical model is accurate, and it allows different outcomes
under different circumstances, then the physical reality
it models prsumable has counterfactual possibilities.
Of
course we see the difference between mental simulation
and observation (who knows the truth?) but to keep
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: computationalism and supervenience
Peter:
... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
something that could have happenned
14 matches
Mail list logo
