Someone called me to task for this posting (I forget who, and I've
lost the posting now). I tried to formulate the notion I expressed
here more precisely, and failed! So I never responded.
What I had in mind was that future observer moment of my current one
will at some point have a total
I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain
our universe.
Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by
our limitations
(as designed by the so-called Creator if any).
So I always think it's possible to produce a perfect universe by
Hi,
The problem with perfection is that this word has *no* absolute meaning.
Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning.
Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you would
be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a
Good question. But I don't think we need to define perfect.
You can check the dictionary to know its meaning.
Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com The problem with perfection is that
this word has *no* absolute meaning.
CW writes:
c) Accepting a) and b) you assume physical laws making time travel
possible (which is of course controversial; this could be in principle
possible with very special assumption, which could also be false in
principle with other assumption).
Time travel is as possible as
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Not at all. There is a *huge* difference between what is possible in theory
and what is possible practically. A person wearing down a mountain with his
fingers is a practical impossibility, but there is nothing in the laws of
physics making it a theoretical
Le 04-août-06, à 15:18, W. C. a écrit :
I remember other people mentioned before. *Normal* people can't accept
that
there is no physical universe.
Even Buddhists won't say that.
Sorry. I was short. All what I say is that IF we take the comp hyp
seriously enough THEN we can see that
John M writes (quoting SP):
St:
Are you suggesting that a brain with the same
pattern of neurons firing, but without the appropriate environmental
stimulus, would not have exactly the same conscious experience?
[JM]:
Show me, I am an experimentalist. First show two brains with the same
Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection.
Le Samedi 5 Août 2006 13:12, W. C. a écrit :
Good question. But I don't think we need to define perfect.
You can check the dictionary to know its meaning.
Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me can
really define it, you will need at least to axiomatize it in some way.
Here is my question. Do you agree that a first person is a
Hi David,
I think I see, albeit vaguely, what you mean by your distinction, but
it seems to me more and more complex and based on many non trivial
notion objective, context, boudaries . It would be interesting if
George and you were able to converge to a sharable notion of first
person. I
I have asked the question before, what do I experience if my measure
in the multiverse increases or decreases? My preferred answer, contra
the ASSA/ QTI skeptics, is nothing. However, the interesting observation
that our perception of time changes with age, so that an hour seems
subjectively
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
Are we reinventing the religion?
Yes.
Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the
problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can
approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the
OK John, I say more on your post.
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read
(and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require
CW writes:
It's like teleportation. Maybe you can demonstrate with 1 or 2 particles in
QM.
But it's another very different thing when we are talking about human beings
(or simple animals).
Maybe other very knowledgeable prof. (like scerir???) in this list can
provide useful ref.
There
Bruno:
I am sorry to have asked that question.
I meant 'religion' as assigning those 'unanswered' questions to some
super-authority and 'believe' an answer assigned as if a higher
authority-wisdom would have provided them, whilst they came from (definitely
wise) humans of THAT age (i.e. level
Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a
steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle.
The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday,
George:
I loved your series. Question:
Is that all not a consequence of "I
think"?
My increased Cartesian sentence may be;I
think therefore I think I am.
Both ways:
Cogito, ergo 'ego', and
Cogito, ergo' esse'.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
George Levy
To:
Hi Stathis,
I agree with what you say. Note that quantum information is very
different from classical information. Quantum information in general
cannot be copied or cloned, so that there is no relative local back-up
possible. That is why in quantum teleportation, the annihilation of the
Hi Bruno
I think you're right about the complexity. It's because at this stage
I'm just trying to discover whether this is a distinction that any of
us think is true or useful, so I'm deliberately (but perhaps not always
helpfully alas) using a variety of terms in the attempt to get my
meaning
Norman Samish wrote:
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be
a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
computer in action.
Quantum computers are only
From: Quentin Anciaux
Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection.
OK. If you want more, I will say perfection in PU is *every being is perfect
and feels perfect (if it has feeling)*.
This doesn't mean that every being is exactly the same. They may have
different
This is one of those truly cracked ideas that is not wise to air in
polite company. Nevertheless, it can be fun to play around with in
this forum. I had a similarly cracked idea a few years ago about 1st
person experienced magic, which we batted around a bit at the tiome
without getting anywhere.
1Z,
I don't know what you mean. Perhaps I can understand your statement, but
only after I get answers to the following questions:
1) What do you mean by Quantum computer?
2) What do you mean by Quantum universe?
3) Why is a Quantum Computer only possible in a Quantum Universe?
4) Why is
Hi WC,
I look forward to seeing your math formulas/theorems etc. supporting the
Perfect Universe.
Your Perfect Universe sounds like the heaven that many true believers
aspire to. There can apparently be as many Heavens as there are Believers,
since each believer is free to define the
25 matches
Mail list logo
