John M writes:
> 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.
Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with the
best theory consistent with t
Stathis:
"I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved
wrong given enough
time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all."
Funny that you of all people come up with such a supposition so different
from fundamental basic human nature!
We all hope to be smarte
>From: Norman Samish
>
>I look forward to seeing your "math formulas/theorems etc." supporting the
>Perfect Universe.
Hi, Norman,
I am more interested in finding some way to make PU real.
Until now, PU is more like my dream.
Writing some math formulas/theorems etc. may just provide some mental
Norman Samish wrote:
> 1Z,
> I don't know what you mean.
That is unfortunate, because as far as I am concerned everyhting
I am saying is obvious. (Have you read "The fabric of Reality" ?)
> Perhaps I can understand your statement, but
> only after I get answers to the following questions:
> 1)
> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:17:21 +1000
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>
>
> This is one of those truly cracked ideas that is not wise to air in
>
Russell Standish writes:
> 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 th
Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your
statement. It seems to boil down to "Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do
with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum
superpositions." Fair enough.
When I read somebody's speculation that the reality
Norman Samish wrote:
> Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your
> statement. It seems to boil down to "Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do
> with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum
> superpositions."
Correct.
> Fair enough.
>
> When I rea
Bruno/ George
I thought I might offer the following analogy to help to clarify the
application and relevance of the distinctions I'm trying to make
vis-a-vis the different types of 'first person'. I wouldn't want to
push it too far, but I think it has a certain formal similarity to the
points I'
I don't know whether these issues have been given an airing here, but
I have a couple of thoughts about whether we're really 'in the
Matrix', a la Nick Bostrom.
Firstly, a moral issue. At least at the level of public debate, in our
(apparent?) reality there is considerable sensitivity to interfer
I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it
well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of
MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it
again.
I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis
advisor
W. C. wrote:
> 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
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 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 experimentalis
John M wrote:
> Stathis:
> "I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved
> wrong given enough
> time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all."
> Funny that you of all people come up with such a supposition so different
> from fundamental basic human nature
David Nyman wrote:
> I don't know whether these issues have been given an airing here, but
> I have a couple of thoughts about whether we're really 'in the
> Matrix', a la Nick Bostrom.
>
> Firstly, a moral issue. At least at the level of public debate, in our
> (apparent?) reality there is consi
Norman Samish wrote:
> I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it
> well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of
> MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it
> again.
>
> I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler,
Stathis,
you (of all people) underestimate human optimism and self confidence. "MY
THEORY"? the 'others' maybe, they become proven wrong and false, not mine!
Then again where is an acceptable evidence? to whom?
Ask Goedel, ask Popper, ask all people who 'think' differently.
Bruno has different ev
Apologies to the list and to Stathis especially!
I replied to Stathis - and "lost" the text - at least I thought so.
That happens in Yahoo-mail sometimes and so far I could not detect which
'key' did I touch wrong?
So I wrote another one and mailed it all right.
Then in the mail I detected my '
Brent:
My idea was exactly what you thundered against. There is no adequate proof,
science is a limited model-view, the quote from J, Neumann even more so and
the court-proof is the compromise (called law) between conflicting interests
in a society. Reasonable doubt relies on how stupid the con
John M wrote:
> Brent:
> My idea was exactly what you thundered against. There is no adequate proof,
> science is a limited model-view, the quote from J, Neumann even more so and
> the court-proof is the compromise (called law) between conflicting interests
> in a society. Reasonable doubt reli
It could be that we are merely incidental to the purpose of the simulation.
In the game of life for example there are many interesting patterns which
come out of simple automata. In the case of this game , AFAIK the only
purpose was to demonstrate the possibility of complexity from simplicity.
N
Norman Samish wrote:
> I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I
> intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI
> too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again.
This is diusputed, e.g. in http://www.hedweb.com/manw
But your observation goes to the heart of my question. If we were
indeed 'merely incidental' (from whose perspective?) then what would
this say about the ethical position of the simulaters? Further, if we
are merely playing the role of 'simple automata' then what is the
purpose (from the simulat
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 11:59:42PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> My thought was that if there are twice as many copies of you running in
> parallel,
> you are in a sense cramming twice as much experience into a given objective
> time
> period, so maybe this "stretches out" the time perio
>From: Bruno Marchal
>...
>But it is easy to explain that this is already a "simple" consequence of
>comp. Any piece of "matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of
>interfering computations: there is no reason to expect this to be
>"clonable" without cloning the whole UD, but this woul
>From: Brent Meeker
>I don't think it's possible, because "perfect" is subjective. Perfect for
>the lion is bad for the antelope.
>
Such problem doesn't exist in PU.
In PU, there is no food chain like "A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.".
Perfect beings (both living and non-living) mean no u
David Nyman writes:
> I don't know whether these issues have been given an airing here, but
> I have a couple of thoughts about whether we're really 'in the
> Matrix', a la Nick Bostrom.
>
> Firstly, a moral issue. At least at the level of public debate, in our
> (apparent?) reality there is con
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Would it be possible to map your three axiomatic lines
replacing "knowable" by "think" and "true" by "exist." ...
See my conversation with 1Z (Peter D. Jones). I will define "exist" by
" "exist" is true".
Then we have:
1 If p thinks then p exists;
W. C. wrote:
>>From: Brent Meeker
>
>
>>I don't think it's possible, because "perfect" is subjective. Perfect for
>>the lion is bad for the antelope.
>>
>
>
> Such problem doesn't exist in PU.
> In PU, there is no food chain like "A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.".
> Perfect beings (both
>From: Brent Meeker
>...
>But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat
>steak is not perfect for me.
>
> > People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a
>PU > will be.
>
>I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU
30 matches
Mail list logo
