2013/10/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 02 Oct 2013, at 10:35, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/10/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called
sciences are pure rubbish,
On Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:48:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/3/2013 4:36 PM, Pierz wrote:
The universe doesn't seem to be too fussed about immense and inescapable
redundancy.
Of course the universe doesn't care when the immense and inescapable
redundancy is in our
Something I posted
yesterdayhttp://multisenserealism.com/2013/10/03/wittgenstein-in-wonderland-einstein-under-glass/
.
If I understand the idea correctly – that is, if there is enough of the
idea which is not private to Ludwig Wittgenstein that it can be understood
by anyone in general or
I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached
page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to
be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that
seems central to what he is saying, namely what is the significance of
On 02 Oct 2013, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote:
However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the
logic as set out.
On 02 Oct 2013, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/2/2013 2:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:09:03AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2013 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that the expression computation have qualia can be
misleading. A computation has no qualia,
On 02 Oct 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/2/2013 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2013 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that the expression computation have qualia can be
misleading. A computation has no qualia, strictly
On 02 Oct 2013, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/2/2013 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with Brent though on this. Your UDA proceeds on the basis
that a computer in a single reality (not an infinite sum of
calculations - that comes later) can have a 1p.
Yes. It has 1p, it is not a
On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
philosophically my low-tech experiment works just as well and is
just as uninformative as your hi-tech version.
Not at all. In your low tech (using a coin), you get an
indeterminacy
On 03 Oct 2013, at 01:38, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
[JC] Because step 3 sucks.
[Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this.
His point is convincing me.
Could you explain it?
Bruno
regards.
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives
On 03 Oct 2013, at 02:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 October 2013 00:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Oct 2013, at 15:31, Pierz wrote:
Maybe. It would be a lot more profound if we definitely *could*
reproduce
the brain's behaviour. The devil is in the detail as they
On 03 Oct 2013, at 02:19, LizR wrote:
On 3 October 2013 13:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Interestingly it appears that most coin tosses may be quantum
random, arXiv:1212.0953v1 [gr-qc]
(snip)
I say most because I know that magicians train themselves to be
able to flip a coin
On 03 Oct 2013, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal
pronouns with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all
questions like what is the probability I will do this or
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
On 4 October 2013 05:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is
a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man
On 03 Oct 2013, at 19:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is
a 100% chance that the Helsinki man
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:38, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates
the behavior of Cellular Automata?
I would say about everything natural and classical behave like fractal
Cellular automata, (the kind of things not so much unrelated
On 04 Oct 2013, at 00:56, chris peck wrote:
Hi Liz / pgc
If I have been abusive to you or Bruno then I apologize without
hesitation. If you would show where I have been abusive though I
would appreciate that, because at the moment I regard the suggestion
as low and mean spirited.
I
Oh that's a typo, and I have never read the Many Forking Paths. It was funny
how philosophers like Borges (a novelist), David Lewis, and Hugh Everett the
3rd got to the same conclusion. All about the same time.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list
Very well, Professor Standish, given that, could the Hubble Volume itself, then
be considered as one CA? A CA that is 13.7 light years across, and thus, that
old? Is this CA, or all CA's something that emerges from thermo and fluid
dynamics, or does it require (sigh!) a programmer, in the
Professor Marchal, hello.
What about at the Planck width? Would you say that this best describes quantum
reality, the home where virtual photons emerge. Thus, down in Planck Land, is
the place where CA produces a program, that may cause all other CA's to emerge,
unravel, unfold? In essence, a
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum
mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS.
ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results in ‘multiple,
emergent, branching quasi-classical realities’ (Wallace [2012]). The
possible outcomes
Vacuum and Entropy.
#
Today everybody knows that the Universe had a beginning from 'Big Bang'.
Alternative question:
Can the Universe begin to exist from Absolute Vacuum Zero: T=0K?
==..
We have two opinions about vacuum:
1
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics
On Friday, October 4, 2013 10:39:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:26:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Oct 2013, at 06:56, Pierz wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:46:17 AM
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
From the point of view of Moscow man, say, it appears (retrospectively,
at least) that he had a 50-50 chance of going to either place.
Retrospective probability? In Many worlds and in these duplicating chamber
thought experiments
Here's another philosophical/computational paper by Scott Aaronson, which I think is more
interesting than the one on Knightian freedom. It's also quite long (58pg). Section 4 is
most relevant to AI and Turing tests.
arXiv:1108.1791v3 [cs.CC] 14 Aug 2011
Why Philosophers Should Care About
On 10/4/2013 6:15 AM, LizR wrote:
I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached page 37. It
looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to be discussed, but there
is something I already have a problem with that seems central to what he is saying,
On 10/4/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion, and should normally
emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of all computations + the stable first
person (plural) points of view.
I don't think physical time is even a single
On 04 Oct 2013, at 18:01, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Professor Marchal, hello.
What about at the Planck width? Would you say that this best
describes quantum reality, the home where virtual photons emerge.
I really have no idea. I have only evidences that the winner universal
machine,
On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
He comes to this because he's *defined* Knightian uncertainty as radical
unpredictability without randomness.
I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness, especially if it comes from
quantum fluctuations during the big bang. But
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:15:47AM +1300, LizR wrote:
I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached
page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to
be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that
seems central to what
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each
pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = xx
trick, which I promised to do in term of numbers, phi_i, W_i, etc.
but 99,999% will find the use
On 10/4/2013 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
He comes to this because he's *defined* Knightian uncertainty as radical
unpredictability without randomness.
I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness,
On 10/4/2013 7:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I
On Friday, October 4, 2013, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2013 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You seem to be agreeing with Craig that each neuron alone is conscious.
The experiment relates to replacement of neurons which play some
On 5 October 2013 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2013 7:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I
On Friday, October 4, 2013, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2013 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You seem to be agreeing with Craig that each neuron alone is conscious.
The
We did talk about this paper about a year ago - maybe on foar.
I agree its interesting, though.
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Here's another philosophical/computational paper by Scott Aaronson,
which I think is more interesting than the one on Knightian freedom.
35 matches
Mail list logo
