You might enjoy my conception of God, which I think is the only way in
which God can be said to exist: God exists as the attractor of maximal
transcendence or the conscious singularity. :)
On Nov 8, 5:36 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Akin to the idea of the technological
On 13 Nov 2011, at 18:17, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/11/13 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 12 Nov 2011, at 23:11, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/11/12 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 10 Nov 2011, at 14:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/11/10 benjayk
On 13 Nov 2011, at 19:13, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/2011 3:29:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, marc...@ulb.ac.be
writes:
Let me try, assuming mechanism. Would you agree that in the case you
are cut and pasted in two different places, the resulting
individuals share a
compscicrackpot wrote:
You might enjoy my conception of God, which I think is the only way in
which God can be said to exist: God exists as the attractor of maximal
transcendence or the conscious singularity. :)
This fits very well with my conception of God.
I don't even think there is a
On 13 Nov 2011, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/13/2011 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
pure consciousness is what is invariant through the change of
memories.
But how do you know there is such a thing.
By self-observation, thought experiments, and by the mechanist
theory---where
On 14 Nov 2011, at 14:30, compscicrackpot wrote:
You might enjoy my conception of God, which I think is the only way in
which God can be said to exist: God exists as the attractor of maximal
transcendence or the conscious singularity. :)
Not bad. Actually it is already a theorem in
On 13 Nov 2011, at 05:21, Jason Resch wrote:
A universe with no laws (described by zero information) has no
prohibition on what structures exist, and is equivalent to
everything existing (which is also described by zero information).
Yes, but you need some theory to make this precise.
On 07 Nov 2011, at 23:08, John Mikes wrote:
To Qentin: DEATH an excellent vaiation for immoprtality. I always
emphasize that ETERNITY is NOT a time indicator, can most likely
be timeless (POOF it is over).
To Bruno:
we wrote already about your 2c question WHO ARE WE? and you
answered
I have a few more ideas to add, considering how this singularity might work
in practice.
I think that actually consciousness does not start in a linear fashion in
our coherent material world, but creates an infinity of semi-coherent
beginngs all the time (at all levels of consciousness), which
I wasn't satisfied by the ideas I was able to derive about the
universe from consciousness when assuming that they are similar
phenomena, but this afternoon I attempted the reverse and found it
much more fruitful.
What consciousness and the universe have in common is that they are
logically
This may be off-topic, but taking on a fanciful, notion; is there a means,
in principle, for somebody biologically alive, to physically go into other
world-lines? I am using the Hugh Everett the 3rd's conception of other
worlds/universes. I am, just as a thought, trying to negate the Quantum
11 matches
Mail list logo
