Le 06-févr.-09, à 12:06, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Hi,
2009/2/6 russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
He also mentions Tegmark's amoeba croaks argument, which is not
actually an argument against QI, but rather a discussion of what QI
might actually mean. Contrary to what some people
2009/2/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Le 06-févr.-09, à 12:06, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Hi,
2009/2/6 russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
He also mentions Tegmark's amoeba croaks argument, which is not
actually an argument against QI, but rather a discussion of what QI
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on this
list. That's why I'm here now - to see if there are any clarifications I
should make in
It seems to me that discussions of quantum immortality often founder on the
fact that people don't make their assumptions about philosophy of mind
explicit, or don't have a well-thought-out position on metaphysical issues
relating to mind in the first place. For example, Jaques, are you
~Zero probability is an essential property of existence.
It is not possible to obtain self-identity until/once more then one
instances of self-referencing entity/system exists. It may be
presented as an unique binary sub-string of minimal length to be found
in huge/(infinite?) binary ring. Thus,
Brian,
this reply of mine may be out of line usually followed on this list. I have
had discussions on a dozen closely and remotely concerned lists over the
past 17 years about the thing? called consciousness, following the yearly
international conferences in Tucson AZ without a universally
Hi,
2009/2/7 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
this list. That's why I'm here now - to
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:59:44AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Ah, never mind, rereading your post I think I see where I misunderstood
you--you weren't saying nothing in QM says anything about the amplitude of
an eigenvector that you square to get the probability of measuring that
8 matches
Mail list logo
