Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that codings are also entirely arbitrary, that every possible bitstring will represent the OM of me sitting at this keyboard typing to you under some coding. It is

Re: Is math real?

On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who remains (despite he is willing to think differently) open to the idea that

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

On 06 Sep 2017, at 18:38, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​It contradicts nothing. We're not talking about the H-person, you're complaining that neither the Moscow Man nor the Washington Man could​ ​have made a prediction,

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

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: ​> ​ > You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't > know you're being duplicated elsewhere. > ​I admitted nothing of the sort! The question is always 100% pure gibberish but I did not know

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:44:02PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >>More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that codings are also entirely > >>arbitrary, that every possible bitstring will represent the

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:39:07PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>I find the discussion in your book rather cursory, unless I have not > >>located the relevant passages -- numbers of