On 19 Nov 2014, at 02:02, LizR wrote:
On 18 November 2014 00:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Aug 2014, at 03:21, LizR wrote:
Alternatively, if a multiverse is necessary, then maybe that shows
that consciousness is a larger phenomenon than is dreamt of, even
in Bruno's
On 18 November 2014 00:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Aug 2014, at 03:21, LizR wrote:
Alternatively, if a multiverse is necessary, then maybe that shows that
consciousness is a larger phenomenon than is dreamt of, even in Bruno's
philosophy, and we experience only a tiny
Sorry for commenting this late.
On 25 Aug 2014, at 03:21, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So of
course with that
On 25 Aug 2014, at 05:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2014 6:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So of
course with that
On 23 Aug 2014, at 06:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/22/2014 6:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:
I must confess that I've been reading the MGA revisited thread with
a certain sense of frustration (notwithstanding that Russell has
made a pretty good fist of clarifying some key points). My
frustration
On 24 Aug 2014, at 00:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/23/2014 9:09 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 August 2014 05:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
What we observe in practice are physical devices of various kinds
(indeed, in principle, indefinitely many kinds) that we accept FAPP
as
On 24 Aug 2014, at 22:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2014 4:44 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 August 2014 23:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're saying it may be incoherent to reduce consciousness to
computation, if computation is reducible to physics? Why would
that be
Well there are some interesting things in this list. It is specially
interesting for the study of the scientist mindset, but not only that.
The projections of your own wishes and phobias on me is not worth
considering.
2014-08-26 12:37 GMT+02:00 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au:
On 26
scientist - scientistic or scientifist
2014-08-27 11:24 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
Well there are some interesting things in this list. It is specially
interesting for the study of the scientist mindset, but not only that.
The projections of your own wishes and
After some time going trough these topics one reach the conclusion that
these explanations are nothing more than computer fashion applied to the
wrong kind of problem. And second, to hide with new terms the immense pride
craziness and vacuum in this circular phrase, that summarizes everything
said
On 26 Aug 2014, at 6:48 pm, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
After some time going trough these topics one reach the conclusion that these
explanations are nothing more than computer fashion applied to the wrong
kind of problem.
One reaches this conclusion. That one is
On 8/24/2014 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy relative to the universes of the
multiverse. The holographic principle would imply that the
information
On 8/24/2014 9:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 16:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:10:49AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2014 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy relative to the universes of the
multiverse. The
On 8/25/2014 12:46 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:10:49AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2014 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The holographic theory implies that any volume enclosed by an event
horizon can contain at most a number of bits of information equal to it's
surface area in Planck units.
String theorists say the maximum number of bits of
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:42:02AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the original question was whether this was consistent with
comp (or the UD). So long as every universe is finite at every
epoch, I think it is. And since there can be an infinite number of
universes there will be infinitely
On 8/25/2014 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:42:02AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the original question was whether this was consistent with
comp (or the UD). So long as every universe is finite at every
epoch, I think it is. And since there can be an infinite
On 23 August 2014 23:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
*You're saying it may be incoherent to reduce consciousness to computation,
if computation is reducible to physics? Why would that be incoherent?
Must 'reduction' necessarily be reduction to the bottom to be coherent?
Or are you
On 8/24/2014 4:44 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 August 2014 23:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
/You're saying it may be incoherent to reduce consciousness to computation,
if
computation is reducible to physics? Why would that be incoherent? Must
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So of course
with that assumption physics needs to either be explained from computation
(Bruno's program)
On 8/24/2014 6:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to
exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So of course with that
assumption
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy relative to the universes of the
multiverse. The holographic principle would imply that the
information content of any universe is always finite. If
On 25 August 2014 15:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/24/2014 6:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 August 2014 08:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's because Bruno rejects the link between 1) and 2) and takes
computation to exist in Platonia, independent of physics. So
On 25 August 2014 16:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:56:03PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I think the idea is that quantum randomness is just
first-person-indeterminancy relative to the universes of the
multiverse. The holographic principle would
On 23 August 2014 05:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
*What we observe in practice are physical devices of various kinds (indeed,
in principle, indefinitely many kinds) that we accept FAPP as adequately
instantiating particular classes of computation within certain fairly
stringent
On 23 Aug 2014, at 03:46, David Nyman wrote:
I must confess that I've been reading the MGA revisited thread with
a certain sense of frustration (notwithstanding that Russell has
made a pretty good fist of clarifying some key points). My
frustration is that I have never been able to see
On 8/23/2014 9:09 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 August 2014 05:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
/What we observe in practice are physical devices of various kinds
(indeed, in
principle, indefinitely many kinds) that we accept FAPP as
I must confess that I've been reading the MGA revisited thread with a
certain sense of frustration (notwithstanding that Russell has made a
pretty good fist of clarifying some key points). My frustration is that I
have never been able to see why we need an elaborate reductio like the MGA
to
On 8/22/2014 6:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:
I must confess that I've been reading the MGA revisited thread with a certain sense of
frustration (notwithstanding that Russell has made a pretty good fist of clarifying some
key points). My frustration is that I have never been able to see why we need
30 matches
Mail list logo
