Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Right now I'm only concerned with the present, the ongoing flow of >> experience. It doesn't sound like you have any issue

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/09/2017 2:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:58:57AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>I have no problems with the assumption that all forms of data can be > >>represented by bitstrings. On the other

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: ​> ​ > let's add a twist. In Helsinki, you're told that you'll be merely > teleported to Barcelona, as before. However, unbeknownst to you, a > duplicate of you will also be created in Paris. This creates a situation

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​ > You can insist with all the bad faith you have (and you have more than > plenty), ​Hey Quentin I have a great idea, go fuck yourself. John K Clark ​ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] what is real -- the Einsteinian view

Dear Vinod, On 05 Sep 2017, at 14:41, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL wrote: Dear Vinod, Thank you for your attempt to understand what I try to explain. Let us indeed try to find where we might disagree. I think we disagree simply on our assumptions. You assume primary stuff. I assume elementary

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 at 1:52 am, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> It seems that you have no problem with 1:1 duplication - you agree that >> you survive, just as if you had travelled by plane.

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 5/09/2017 2:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:58:57AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have no problems with the assumption that all forms of data can be represented by bitstrings. On the other hand, I do have some difficulty accepting off-hand that all possible

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 05 Sep 2017, at 04:26, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​They both say that the reconstitution has been enough good for them, and both agree that among the W and the M experiences, they live only one of them, and that they

Re: Is math real?

On 5 September 2017 at 01:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: > > On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 21:54, smitra wrote: Reply to everyone. What we experience is not the physical world but a simulation of it by our brain. So, even if we assume that there exists a "primary" physical world, we're not really living in one, we're at most living in a World that's

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

I toy with this idea every once in a while. That the observer moments are generated by an observer, the observer is, for want of a better word, God, and where did God emerge from? Well, the easiest way for me to imagine this, is to invoke a Boltzmann Brain as The Observer. Therefore, rather

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 05 Sep 2017, at 04:31, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​With mechanism, we have to listen to all the copies.What you say is contradicted by all your copies. ​Is that it? Is that all you've got to say? It was a long post,

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 20:58, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/4/2017 12:05 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Of course they couldn't have figured out which one before the >> duplication, they couldn't figure out ANYTHING before the duplication >> because they didn't exist before the duplication! > > ​> ​ > This contradicts

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​> ​ > It seems that you have no problem with 1:1 duplication - you agree that > you survive, just as if you had travelled by plane. > ​Certainly. And if you put me on a plane and I asked "Where is this plane going,

Re: Is math real?

On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine. Then we use the math of self-reference to study what a digital machine can prove and not prove about itself, and the 8

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > That it turns out the the H-man didn't see Moscow. > ​ ​ > We agree that the M-man see M, but the H-man was unable to predict that he > would specifically feel to be the one in Washington. > ​Gibberish.​ ​> ​ > That

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-09-05 18:14 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > > > Of course they couldn't have figured out which one before the >>> duplication, they couldn't figure out ANYTHING before the duplication >>> because

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/09/2017 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2017, at 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Nobody can observe a metaphysical idea. You can observe matter, and that is an evidence for matter, not for primary matter. Primary means "not

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 03:14, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I honestly don't feel that a TOE cannot be achieved unless astronomers and physicists build and use better detection equipment to observe the universe. I am convinced just by more prosaic achievements, like dark mater and

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 00:25, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: My complaint is that it implicitly assumes more than "Yes doctor". It assumes that computation exists in a Platonic realm independent of the physical. This not really needed. At

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 02:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On the contrary, we can only speculate