Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your
next
observer moment?
The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as competing views.
I am not 100% sure that I have the ASSA right, in that it doesn't seem
too different from the
At 20:11 13/11/03 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
David Kwinter wrote:
Thank you Bruno Jesse, this anticipatory QTI is the most awesome
interpretation of QM I've ever heard.
It's not so much an interpretation of QM as the many-worlds
interpretation of QM + some assumptions about laws of
At 14:21 12/11/03 -0800, Pete Carlton wrote:
Greetings;
this reply has taken some time...
I don't quite agree with your point of view, and the reason is maybe
similar to our disagreement in my statement: It is not useful to talk
about 1st person experiences in 3rd person terms, since when we do
Looks like this topic ended with my last post of 3 days ago. Thank
you to those who contributed. I've no idea how things will really
settle out in a Theory of Everything related to physics. My arguments
are but one view point, certainly not the most educated, and until
some time in the future
Joao Leao:
The association between non-locality and retrocausality
(for lack of a better word) is anything but simple! In any
case it has less to do with the flow of time than with its
negation! [...]
Bell's theorem shows that, given the hidden variable lambda,
the result of the experiment
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When you said earlier that:
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.
I would say I *own* a bunch of
scerir wrote:
Joao Leao:
> The association between non-locality and "retrocausality"
> (for lack of a better word) is anything but simple! In any
> case it has less to do with the flow of time than with its
> negation! [...]
Bell's theorem shows that, given the hidden variable lambda,
the result
Ron,
I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosoper, however, the
idea of dark energy is intriguing. I asked a question a few weeks ago,
whether dark (mass) energy is identical to negative (mass) energy and
what the implications would be in terms of Newton mechanics. The reason
for
Or conceivably could an SAS in a classically deterministic universe surmise
something like a Level III multiverse, from considerations of the (ontological?)
status(es) of terms of alternatives, alternatives of the types studied in logic
(e.g. multivalue logic), mathematical theory of
9 matches
Mail list logo
