On 6 Nov 2003 at 21:20, James N Rose wrote:
If we are now observing acceleration,
that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration)
and then a huge reduction in acceleration.
So, what bled off the extra original acceleration
momentum? Or countered it?
A mind bending question.
What do you mean by *entirely equal*?
- Original Message -
From: David Kwinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10:47 AM, Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
Let me stress
Also, what about a weighted version of the ASSA? I believe other animals
are
conscious and thus would qualify as observers/observer-moments, which
would
suggest I am extraordinarily lucky to find myself as an observer-moment
of
what seems like the most intelligent species on the
Ron McFarland wrote:
On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote:
> Part II:
> >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
> > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent
redshift
> > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored
for
> > the purpose of
Of potential interest:
News
Mesons violate Bell's inequality (Nov 6)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/11/3
The famous Bell's inequality of quantum mechanics has been tested in a
high-energy particle physics experiment for the first time. The
inequality was violated by three
I mean the absolutely exact same David Kwinter or Eric Cavalcanti as
was the moment before.
see below for further comment
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
What do you mean by *entirely equal*?
- Original Message -
From: David Kwinter [EMAIL
Of potential interest:
News
Mesons violate Bell's inequality (Nov 6)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/11/3
Just wanted to emphasize that they are *supposed* to do that. Bell's
inequality IS violated by quantum mechanics. As the summary explained,
this is a confirmation of QM.
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: David Kwinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the absolutely exact same David Kwinter or Eric Cavalcanti as
was the moment before.
I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of exactly
equal copies. Nevertheless, I am sure I will only
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 07:56 PM, Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: David Kwinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the absolutely exact same David Kwinter or Eric Cavalcanti as
was the moment before.
I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of
Hello David,
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
Please note that my understanding of QM is rather lame... Doesn't MWI
require some interaction between branches in order to explain things
like interference patterns in the two slit experiment? What does this
mean for the concept of identity?
- David
Jesse Mazer writes:
OK, so now go back to the scenario where you're supposed to
be recreated in both Washington and Moscow, except assume that at the last
moment there's a power failure in Moscow and the recreator machine fails to
activate. Surely this is no different from the scenario
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
OK, so now go back to the scenario where you're supposed to
be recreated in both Washington and Moscow, except assume that at the
last
moment there's a power failure in Moscow and the recreator machine fails
to
activate. Surely this is no different from
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Hal Finney wrote:
Measure is important. It is what guides our life every day.
We constantly make decisions so as to maximize the measure of good
outcomes, as nearly as we can judge. I don't think we can neglect it
in these thought experiments.
What type of measure are
Russell wrote:
The empirical problem with the ASSA is that under most reasonable
proposals for the absolute measure, observer moments corresponding to
younger people have higher measure than older people. Whilst the
reference class issue puts a lower bound on how old you would expect
to be,
Hi,
Doesn't this part:
In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
happen to constitute a system that has self-referential qualities that
we call consciousness. If it happened that these atoms temporarily
(like in a coma or anesthesy) or permanently (death) lose this
Pete Carlton writes:
Let's say that you were able to completely specify one Eric, by giving
a (possibly infinitely) long description. Let's call the entity you
have thus specified Eric01. Our point of difference seems to be
this: You believe that when Eric01 says I, he is referring
16 matches
Mail list logo
