Dear Bruno,
I've been following the list for a couple of months now and I sort of share
Piertz worries about randomness. Here is a summary of what I've understood
this far.
The UDA might imply lots of white rabbits but only those computations with
self-reference to have to be taken into account.
Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are derived
from UDA?
Ricardo
El nov 19, 2011 9:49 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" escribió:
>
> On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
>
> In a previous post I launched a kamizake assault on UDA which was
>> justly cut to shreds on the basis
Hi Ricardo,
On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:12, R AM wrote:
I've been following the list for a couple of months now and I sort
of share Piertz worries about randomness. Here is a summary of what
I've understood this far.
The UDA might imply lots of white rabbits but only those
computations with sel
Ricardo,
On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:33, R AM wrote:
Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are
derived from UDA?
He has some health problem, and rarely finish papers. Sorry. I work
hard to encourage him to finish a paper on those complex numbers. I
will let you know if
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> The question whether my ego self survives can also not be
>> mechanistically
>> determined, since it depends on what we identitify the local ego
>> with and
>> this question cannot be mechanistically determined (as it is a
>> matter of
>> taste or opinion).
>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> The question whether my ego self survives can also not be
>> mechanistically
>> determined, since it depends on what we identitify the local ego
>> with and
>> this question cannot be mechanistically determined (as it is a
>> matter of
>> taste or opinion).
>
Hi Bruno,
I had few questions regarding some of the things said in your post.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
>
> David Deutsch's idea
>> of a good explanation is one that closely matches the structure of the
>> thing it describe
On 19 Nov 2011, at 12:27, Pierz wrote:
Thank you for this reply. You mention a lot of theory I'm unfamiliar
with as yet, so I will have to do some study before I can make a
sensible response.
OK.
I've never heard you call it a problem rather than
a solution before, but that enhances my un
Quoting Bruno Marchal:
"UDA shows that physics is determined by a relative measure on
computations. If this leads to predict that electron weight one ton
then mechanism is disproved. UDA shows that physics is entirely reduce
to computer science/number theory in a very specific and unique way
(modu
Dear Russell,
I gave up on Tipler more than a dacade ago for reasons you touched, and so
on 'omega point' (as 'idealistic' - a term I do not use anymore). A
question: do you appreciate "the science of complexity" as reasonable, in a
situation we id not get through to even outline at our present le
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:23:57PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Ricardo,
>
> On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:33, R AM wrote:
>
> >Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are
> >derived from UDA?
> >
> He has some health problem, and rarely finish papers. Sorry. I work
> hard to encou
On 11/20/2011 2:56 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
Quoting Bruno Marchal:
"UDA shows that physics is determined by a relative measure on
computations. If this leads to predict that electron weight one ton
then mechanism is disproved. UDA shows that physics is entirely reduce
to computer science/numb
Russell,
5 minutes after I "sent" my letter on complexity to you, here is your next
piece explaining that I misunderstood the topic.
Of cours "a theory on complex numbers" is quite different from what I had
in mind.
Sorry
John M
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27:20AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> >
> More general physical principals like the Schrodinger equation might be
> applicable to all observers if it is truly, as Russell staid, a theory of
> observation. But something like the weight of the electron, the
> Gravitation
Yes - the terminology of complex numbers in Mathematics (and
real/imaginary numbers) is unfortunate. Forunately, hardly anyone gets
confused :).
I am interested in Eric Vanderbusch's result, of course, because one
of the least satisfactory parts of my derivation of quantum mechanics
is the use of
To be fair, Rosen was addressing the question of "what is life",
rather than "what is complexity", per se. His notions, whilst interesting, do
differ in important ways from what most complexity science researchers
are talking about. Also being cloaked in the language of category
theory, they are di
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27:20AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > More general physical principals like the Schrodinger equation might be
> > applicable to all observers if it is truly, as Russell staid, a theory of
> > observat
17 matches
Mail list logo
