On 23 Jan 2014, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/23/2014 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only to make the UDA non valid.
On 23 Jan 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/23/2014 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 00:45, meekerdb wrote:
snip
What makes you sure that the idea that all programs terminates is
not also an idealisation (about a finite universal reality)?
Also, if all programs
On 23 Jan 2014, at 20:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Finally I agree there is NOT just a single computation going on. I
just agreed with that in my previous response. I suggested there are
myriads of computations going on in a single computational reality.
One of course needs a single
On 23 Jan 2014, at 21:43, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You
decide to take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the
idea, instead of using the less gibberish sense, to focus
On 23 Jan 2014, at 22:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:18:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly no to
On 24 Jan 2014, at 02:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Among other interesting things, you wrote:
If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or
if you have played with a couple of universal system (machine or
language), and have even a rough idea how
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[]p - p
Here, there is no more truth table available, and so you have to
think. The Leibniz semantic (the only semantic we have defined)
provides all the information to solve the
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:20, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 01:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:57, LizR wrote:
Everybody loves my baby. Therefore my baby loves my baby. But my
baby loves nobody but me. Therefore - the only way this can be true
- is if Alicia
On 24 Jan 2014, at 08:23, Brian Tenneson wrote:
There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are
true statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about
arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just
impossible for you and me but for a
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net:
Dear Alberto,
I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a
I mean the computer in a cruise missile is a computation , the sensors
and the actuators. I also don`t want to steal your precious
computation concept. I just resigned. I call it now self sustained
processes that compute. Although for me that expression is a
redundancy.
I would have you a little
Liz,
Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused
it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is
why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other
all the time.
Don't think of it like it's continued existence
Liz,
I don't know how you are getting so sidetracked here. p. 718 clearly
applies to the areas of the universe that are NOT homogeneous. Otherwise
there wouldn't be any of the effect they are describing...
While the universe may be roughly homogeneous at the largest scales, it
most certainly
On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:31:33 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 24 January 2014 01:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you
that before you get it?
Edgar
On Friday, January 24, 2014 3:28:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 20:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Finally I agree there is NOT just a single computation going on.
I always wonder why physicists insist on 'gravity' when 'space-time curvature'
is the more scientific explanation. Isn't 'gravity' something that needs to be
'taken on faith'?
Samiya
On 24-Jan-2014, at 2:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 07:33, meekerdb
On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell
you that before you get it?
I did not say that.
But you mentioned a single computational reality. What do you mean?
There is only one single computational reality,
Bruno,
Stop making the ridiculous claim that there is only one computational
reality, the UD, as if yours was the only one that could even be
postulated.
My computational reality is NOT the same as your 'comp', and your
conclusions obviously do not apply to mine.
I've explained mine in
All,
Posted FYI, not because I believe it has merit. For one thing it repeats
the usual quantum misinterpretation that particles are in more than one
place at once and that wave particle duality is actual. It isn't.
Particles are all that is actually measured. The wave-like behavior is an
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
Stephen has just presented to you.
All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed
and static somehow moves (without
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Bruno,
Stop making the ridiculous claim that there is only one computational
reality, the UD, as if yours was the only one that could even be
postulated.
My computational reality is NOT the same as your 'comp', and your
conclusions obviously do
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
Stephen has just presented to you.
All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that
Quentin,
Boy, this is like talking to a cult member. Only true believer personal
flame attacks supporting their 'guru' with no actual substance at all. And
you think it's me that shouldn't be posting on a scientific forum?
Go figure!
:-)
Edgar
On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:56:28 AM
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
Boy, this is like talking to a cult member. Only true believer personal
flame attacks supporting their 'guru' with no actual substance at all. And
you think it's me that shouldn't be posting on a scientific forum?
Go figure!
Yeah go
On 24 Jan 2014, at 12:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I mean the computer in a cruise missile is a computation , the sensors
and the actuators. I also don`t want to steal your precious
computation concept. I just resigned. I call it now self sustained
processes that compute. Although for me that
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I said almost. I defined free-will not really by an inability, but by
the knowledge of that inability.
It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below is still
utterly ridiculous:
I don't see how the
On 24 January 2014 23:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
(Later, we will stop asking that all worlds (in the sense given) belongs
in the multiverse. We can decide to suppress all
On 25 January 2014 02:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused
it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is
why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other
On 1/23/2014 11:59 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only the idealized computations of Turing. Computations in my computer always
stop.
Because you assume that it exists in some ontological sense. That might be possible. My
point is that if this was really the case, you can't say yes to the doctor
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the concept
of God, therefore they redefine the word accordingly.
Hence if a christian asks me whether
On 1/24/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In your aristotelian theology. But when working on the mind-body problem, it is better
to abandon all prejudices on this. Indeed with comp, it is the concrete laptop which
appears as an (unconscious preprogrammed) idealization.
Of course I'd say
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:12:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
You mention that you think octonion Hilbert space will be found to
be more fundamental than complex Hilbert space. Of course many
people have speculated that quaternions or octonions will be more
fundamental, but nothing definite has
On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
Stephen has just presented to you.
Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could
On 1/24/2014 5:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused it. At that
point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is why it's called dark
matter. And of course masses separate from each other all the time.
Don't
On 25 January 2014 11:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A warp in space that is bound together by its own gravitation is what is
known as a black hole.
Technically I believe there is still a mass inside it, however, even if it
has been crushed to a point. It isn't a free-floating space
On 25 January 2014 11:07, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the
concept
of God,
Liz,
Do you have some references or links indicating either Einstein or Newton
believed in block time? That's news to me and I rather doubt they did. I
know Einstein once mentioned time was a persistent illusion, but that's not
at all the same as believing in block time
Or perhaps you are
Brent,
No, my proposed dark matter effect has nothing to do with black holes.
Black holes are caused by accumulations of actual visible matter, not by
the Hubble expansion of space...
However I do have a question for you. Since gravitational changes propagate
at the speed of light how does
Dear Edgar,
One has to be willing to face the flames, sometimes literally, when
promoting a new idea. I do appreciate your concepts and willingness to
defend them. I must say that so far I have not seen anything original in
your proposal that really sparks my attention.
I do wish you would
On 1/24/2014 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
As for the question of quantum theory's irreality, perhaps we have just to learn to love
/i/. After all, it is not just quantum mechanics where its influence is felt. Complex
numbers are also increasingly vital in describing optical waveguides,
On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS
theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which Stephen
On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:12:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
You mention that you think octonion Hilbert space will be found to
be more fundamental than complex Hilbert space. Of course many
people have speculated that quaternions or octonions will be
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/24/2014 2:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D
On 1/24/2014 3:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 11:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
A warp in space that is bound together by its own gravitation is what is
known as a
black hole.
Technically I believe there is still a mass inside it,
No,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the
concept
of God,
Indeed. In fact he hasn't answered a whole raft of questions, preferring to
make a snarky comment about one item in a post and completely ignoring the
rest of it. He also doesn't think Newton and Einstein believed in block
time, even though the term originates from Minkowski's unification of space
On 1/24/2014 4:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, my proposed dark matter effect has nothing to do with black holes. Black holes are
caused by accumulations of actual visible matter, not by the Hubble expansion of space...
However I do have a question for you. Since gravitational changes
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:35:16PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Indeed - with my derivation of QM, octonions, or more general measure
are preferred over the complex. Which naturally leads to the question
of why complex. Either octonions make no empirical
On 25 January 2014 16:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/24/2014 4:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, my proposed dark matter effect has nothing to do with black holes.
Black holes are caused by accumulations of actual visible matter, not by
the Hubble expansion of space...
On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Tell me what you believe so we can be clear:
My understanding is that you believe that if the parts of the Chinese
Room don't understand Chinese, then the Chinese Room can't understand
Chinese. Have I got this wrong?
50 matches
Mail list logo
