Thomas,
>> (Apropos Günther Greindl's remark: "space as the self moving in
>> relation to everything else, time as everything outside the self moving in
>> relation to oneself."
> it's funny that already in 1895, in his novel The Time Machine, H.G.
> Wells wrote, "There is no difference between
Hi John,
> I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
> assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
> beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
It is as you wish, but it is my way to question the humans, through UDA.
Then the nu
Hi Bruno,
> and Cantor get a contradiction from that. You assume the diagram is
> indeed a piece of an existing bijection in Platonia, or known by God.
No, you misunderstand me there - I just meant that we need to take the
step to infinity - see below.
> that you get by flipping the 0 and 1
Hello,
> My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I
> specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once
> assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch
> of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally
> re
Brent wrote:
"...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of
"the rest of the world" is non-local
(i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity..."
EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How can
one use such artifact as
John, Brent,
John said:
> EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point.
>How can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that "shows..."?
Aspect Et Al tested it ages ago, see for instance here:
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
Brent said:
> But the
On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I admire too. Kim is courageous.
> Well, for the tenacity we will see :)
>
>
Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am
devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my
ability to sit and cogit
2009/1/9 Brent Meeker :
>> But in a block universe, where each frame contains all of the
>> information for a particular time, the order is implicit.
>
> What makes it implicit?... increasing entropy? ...conformance to dynamical
> laws?
> These are things outside the frames. If you assume the
John Mikes wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
> "...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the
> influence of "the rest of the world" is non-local
> (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity..."
>
> EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a poi
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/1/9 Brent Meeker :
>
>>> But in a block universe, where each frame contains all of the
>>> information for a particular time, the order is implicit.
>> What makes it implicit?... increasing entropy? ...conformance to dynamical
>> laws?
>> These are things outs
2009/1/10 Brent Meeker :
>> Consider a simulation of an observer watching a falling stone, running
>> on a digital computer. Does the observer have any way of knowing
>> whether the simulation is being run serially, in parallel, on how many
>> and what kinds of physical machines, at what speed, o
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Brent Meeker :
>
>>> Consider a simulation of an observer watching a falling stone, running
>>> on a digital computer. Does the observer have any way of knowing
>>> whether the simulation is being run serially, in parallel, on how many
>>> and what kinds of
12 matches
Mail list logo
