On 26 Mar 2014, at 2:23 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:57, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at all. The conclusion
would still follow in a classical infinite universe.
I don't see that, because you
On 3/25/2014 9:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26
On 3/25/2014 11:06 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 2:23 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26 March 2014 14:57, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree but I don't think you need to refer to QM at
Thank you Russell, I have ordered my copy.
On 26 March 2014 17:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
From your Amazon store near you.
http://www.amazon.com/Amoebas-Secret-Bruno-Marchal/dp/1495992799/
Cheers
--
On 26 March 2014 16:55, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
But that's assuming you *don't* live forever, so you aren't answering
the other poster's comment.
Sure it does and I'm not assuming that. It makes no difference whether I
live forever or not.
That's quite an unusual
On 26 March 2014 17:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy
were needed, either at the quantum level or to an infinite number of
decimal places, then we could not
On 26 March 2014 22:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 17:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy
were needed, either at the quantum
2014-03-26 2:45 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our
consciousness flits about from one copy of us to another and
2014-03-26 7:13 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 6:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 25 Mar 2014, at 19:33, bs...@cornell.edu wrote:
If DNA +/- something else is a universal programing language
and we manage to figure out how to operate that...
it might indeed indicate that a new trillion$ technology is looming.
It exists. It is part of biotechnology. I have worked
On 25 Mar 2014, at 21:31, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 06:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 04:24, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it is that
structure, that its
On 25 Mar 2014, at 21:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 20:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
How does cloning differ from asking the doctor.
Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory-
Thank you Russell I have ordered my copy two.
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone: 02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain
On 25 Mar 2014, at 21:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I presume that FPI includes consciousness.
In the sense that the FPI domain is the 1p experience.
So ti seems that the consciousness level is below the substitution
level
It is at the substitution level, by definition. It is also below
Thank you Russell I have ordered my copy two
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone: 02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain
On 26 Mar 2014, at 00:12, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures,
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:42:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 21:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2
Come on, the guy believe in Aristotelian
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:31, LizR wrote:
On 26 March 2014 04:35, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 20:32, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Is there anything in particle physics that emulates the processing
capabilities of computers, analog or digital? My question goes
below
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
An infinite universe (Tegmark type 1) implies that our consciousness
flits about from one copy of us to
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 11:29, LizR
lizj...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lizj...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:12, Stathis Papaioannou
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:40:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:42:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 21:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 02:23, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version,
making him either a coward, or an opportunist
On 26 Mar 2014, at 02:48, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:23:10 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:34:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared
Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
For 2 things to be in the same macrostate small changes to the microstate
must make no difference the way the things behave at the largest scale
First you say Macrostates are defined only in terms of a set of *present*
microstates and then you give a
Taxpayers fund creationism in the classroom
About that Taxpayer Funded Creationism: Why Set Theory??
Some fine Daily Kos diarists, as well as the estimable Charles P. Pierce at
Esquire, have highlighted the new article in Politico today called
Taxpayers fund creationism in the classroom...
In
On 26 Mar 2014, at 04:22, chris peck wrote:
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you
actually live forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the
one thing it isn't is significant.
The continuation of an experiential history on some
Years back, Clifford Pickover at IBM came up the identical (indexical?) notion,
using bicycle parts, jello cubes in all the refrigerators on Earth, and flocks
of birds. It would be a great thing if we were somehow to capture actual
programs being run in cloud formations. I don't even guess
we want information..information...information... You are number 6, I am number
2. Get him rover
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:59 am
Subject: Re: [foar] COMP = no cloning?
On 25 March
On 3/26/2014 2:38 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 17:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You don't need an *exact* copy, just a good enough copy. If an exact copy
were
needed,
On 3/26/2014 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-03-26 2:45 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 6:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 March 2014 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/26/2014 2:57 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-03-26 7:13 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/25/2014 9:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 1:56 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far higher than
the Planck level) if we are to survive from moment to moment, and that
implies there are only a finite number of possible brains and hence mental
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far higher
than the Planck level) if we are to survive from moment to moment, and that
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:30:41AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:06:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The engineering tolerance of the brain must be finite (and far higher
On 27 March 2014 09:28, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, I agree. Survive isn't well defined at the quantum level. The
same kind of reasoning that leads people to say we're immortal, also
implies we're always dying.
As far as I can tell, quantum immortality requires that we are
On 27 March 2014 10:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you allow brains to grow infinitely big, there are only a finite
number of possible brains even in an infinite universe.
With sufficiently advanced technology (e.g. uploading yourself to a
digital brain), the upper
On 27 March 2014 11:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
infinitely big in either space or time ... - yes, well why not? We
consider Turing machines that can run for ever with a potentially
infinite tape.
I think infinite in time but not space implies a Nietzschean eternal
On 27 March 2014 04:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:40:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:42:03 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 21:36, Craig
On 27 March 2014 08:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Years back, Clifford Pickover at IBM came up the identical (indexical?)
notion, using bicycle parts, jello cubes in all the refrigerators on Earth,
and flocks of birds. It would be a great thing if we were somehow to
capture actual programs
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:31:25AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 11:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
infinitely big in either space or time ... - yes, well why not? We
consider Turing machines that can run for ever with a potentially
infinite tape.
I think
On 27 March 2014 11:53, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:31:25AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 11:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
infinitely big in either space or time ... - yes, well why not? We
consider Turing
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:35:18 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 27 March 2014 04:00, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:40:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I
skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I
have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI
except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few
bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't
appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like
On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I
skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I
have to admit it didn't appear to say anything
On 3/26/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I
skipped a
few bits that seemed incoherent to my
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple
or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology.
Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout
my life) indicates
On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or
bust vs
maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology.
Well OK, but what I've
49 matches
Mail list logo
