On 24 Aug 2011, at 21:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2011 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y
ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2
Qu = B^(5^60)
La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5
Th + 2Z = B^5
L = U + TTh
E = Y + MTh
N = Q^16
R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +
Hi David,
It looks not so bad :)
At first sight it is based on the ASSA (absolute self-samplings, like
in the doomsday argument; may be Russell can comment on this). He
seems naïve on the identity thesis, but that could be a reduction ad
absurdum. The use of classical chaos is interesting,
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>.
>
> Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think
> that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss
> (although not necessarily self-conscious).
>
Hi again
On Aug 25, 6:12 am, "Alberto G.Corona" wrote:
> On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:> On 05 Jul 2011,
> at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
> >.
>
> > Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think
> > that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Aren't you restricting your notion of
>> what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with
>> its own
>> assumptions?
>
> Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what "explanation"
> are, and what we can hope to be 100% explainable, an
On 8/25/2011 3:12 AM, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
.
Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think
that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss
(although no
On 25 Aug 2011, at 12:12, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
.
Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think
that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss
(although not
On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:03, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Aren't you restricting your notion of
what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with
its own
assumptions?
Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what
"explanation"
are, and what we can hope
Hi,
I have found what I believe is a flaw in the reasoning in the paper.
On pages 5-6 we find:
" In Section 5, I attempt to apply this reasoning to the case of an
infinite lifetime. I find that, on the one hand, in discovering his
current moment out of an infinite ensemble of moments, the
9 matches
Mail list logo
