From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Solar cells are getting cheaper and easier
2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
*That's nonsense, *
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care
less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who
adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your
Jesse,
Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
also address your latest questions in separate replies...
Drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto an arbitrary space. Place a clock
at each
Hi Quentin
I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to
read it, I will this week.
Ah so you dismiss things that you havent read then? Impressive!
The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the
interpretation of what it means. It is
On 23 Feb 2014, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 09:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David
2014-02-25 15:02 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
* I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have
time to read it, I will this week.*
Ah so you dismiss things that you havent read then? Impressive!
I don't... I've said it's about the
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately
relies on some transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the
sensible world is conceived as the resultant of the inter-
subjective
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:57, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:07:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
also address your latest questions in separate replies...
Drop an
On 2/24/2014 11:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
That would certainly be true if there is no sense of urgency to get the job done, but we
got to the moon in less than 9 years once we decided we really really wanted to go
there. There is no scientific reason it would take decades to get a LFTR
On 24 Feb 2014, at 04:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:50:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 18:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
On 2/24/2014 11:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
That would certainly be true if there is no sense of urgency to get the
job done, but we got to the moon in less than 9 years once we
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's
No. The W-man and the M-m
But that's 2 not one, so if
On 2/25/2014 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
admitting simply that indexical notion are modal notion, and thus don't need to obey to
Leibniz identity rule.
I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that there is some modal notion that makes
identity of indiscernibles wrong? I think of
On 2/25/2014 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately relies on some
transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the sensible world is conceived as
Stathis,
I understand your point but you don't understand my point.
My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example
is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run
in time to give the motion of the frames.
That kind of proof obviously
On 24 Feb 2014, at 06:25, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 24 February 2014 12:43, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
John Searle in one of his papers proposes that if our brain were
being
gradually replaced we would find ourselves losing qualia while
declaring
that everything was normal, and
On 25 Feb 2014, at 01:05, chris peck wrote:
The point is that how probability fits into MWI's determinist
framework, or any TofE really, is still an open question.
Of course, and my point is that comp aggravates that problem, as only
extends the indterminacy from a wave to arithmetic.
On 25 Feb 2014, at 10:43, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
David Deutsch does not reject probability...
Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision
theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't
probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about
the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
FPI = first person indeterminacy of result of experience having two
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
I think the early experiments at Oak Ridge with LFTR were side-lined
because it did not fit well with the requirements of the Cold War. The LFTR
fuel cycle does not support (i.e. help scale up) the military need
On 2/25/2014 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
Well let's see, my car has 306 horsepower, one horsepower is equal to 746 watts so my
car needs 228,276 watts. On a bright day at noon solar cells produce about 10 watts per
square foot, so my car would need 22,827 square feet of solar cells, that's not
Jesse,
So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
discussion.
I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tightly
enough. I'll reword it...
What I mean here is that all
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which
time is already FLOWING.
Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in
a block universe becomes a matter
Stathis,
PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to
other people because your consciousness and your biological being are
located where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on
your part
So your example proves MY point, not yours..
Edgar
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new
components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and
everything continues to work the same way downstream.
This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making
petrol, if possible. No change is
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
discussion.
I accept your criticism of my third point which was not
On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e.
different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same
way downstream.
This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and
On 26 February 2014 04:50, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
I understand your point but you don't understand my point.
My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example
is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run in
time
On 26 February 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to other
people because your consciousness and your biological being are located
where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on
On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time
is already FLOWING.
Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no
On 26 February 2014 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you
are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example
On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new
components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and
everything continues to work the same way downstream.
This
On 2/25/2014 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new
components
(i.e. different types of generators
On 26 February 2014 12:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/25/2014 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new
components (i.e.
Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a
technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked
on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with,
regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive
On 2/25/2014 4:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology
if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to
replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and
Hi Liz
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has
been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for
identity over time?
With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
* In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of
you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. *
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your
criterion
Every time someone says we should worry about climate change or look for
renewable sources of power, people start saying it's a plot by greenies to
rule the world.
Psychologists tell us that people tend to project their own motives onto
others...
--
You received this message because you are
Hi Liz
Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could
follow on from your current brain state via whatever transitions rules
are allowed by - I assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can
explain.
let me ask a more round about question:
you say that we see spin up every time 'if
On 26 February 2014 15:53, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
*Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from
your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I
assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain.*
let me ask
Hydro IS solar. How do you think the water gets up those hills and into the
lakes?!
Governments having subsidised and otherwise helped out fossil fuels and
nuclear for years, I believe, a level playing field would be to subsidise
solar to the same extent they've been subsidised so far.
On 26
On 2/25/2014 7:18 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Point taken. But I know that the progressive billionaires do advocate switching off our
current dirty, in exchange for promises of clean. Promises, only, that is.
Hydroelectric, isn't really solar, its gravity, so we can call it gravity power.
On 26 February 2014 16:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's scope obviously requires government level leadership and
organization, but YOU exemplify the obstruction to that with your Ayn Rand
fear of government and dogmatic faith in 'free markets'.
This is SO similar to a friend of
Chris, I wait your answer to my post. The one I re-explained and ask
what is wrong above. Please use the 1-p distinction, which is the
key precision to get things right (which is why Clark systematically
forget it to refute step 3).
Bruno
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:16, chris peck wrote:
Hi
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and
spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where,
in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's
step 3, he argues:
What ... should
There is a whole sector of biofuels devoted to various interesting
microorganisms -- some that have also been genetically engineered - to
harness them in order to produce chemicals, including fuels and important
pre-curser chemicals (Butanol being one)
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration
if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have
worked on energy systems to replace the
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:19 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Point taken. But I know that
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Hydro IS solar. How do you think the water
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect
(with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite.
But, If she had of said that you'd both be
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should
expect (with certainty!)
2014-02-26 7:28 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
She should have said:
Hi Liz
I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume
there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your
physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe.
We lose that definition just by stepping into the realm of MWI don't
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Liz
* I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally
assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with)
your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe.*
Hi Bruno
Of course, and my point is that comp aggravates that problem, as only
extends the indterminacy from a wave to arithmetic.
Personally, I don't think it makes a difference what the underlying substrata
of reality consists of, be it sums or some fundamental 'matter-esq' substance.
On 26 February 2014 19:31, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
* I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally
assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with)
your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one
59 matches
Mail list logo
