> On 3 Apr 2018, at 19:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/3/2018 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 3 Apr 2018, at 07:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/31/2018 1:30 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Now, is
> On 3 Apr 2018, at 19:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/3/2018 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 31 Mar 2018, at 10:30, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now, is a jellyfish conscious?
I bet they are, but no
> On 4 Apr 2018, at 10:21, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russell Standish
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now, is a jellyf
> On 2 Apr 2018, at 19:53, smitra wrote:
>
> On 02-04-2018 17:27, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Apr 2018, at 00:29, Lawrence Crowell
>>> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 2:32:06 PM UTC-6, telmo_menezes
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2018, at 22:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/2/2018 10:53 AM, smitra wrote:
>> On 02-04-2018 17:27, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 1 Apr 2018, at 00:29, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 2:32:06 PM UTC-6, telmo_menezes
wrote:
>
> On 5 Apr 2018, at 07:25, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Does a macro object, say a billiard ball, have a definite wave function?
> That is, does it have one in principle, even if it can't be written down? If
> one can speak of the wf of the universe, one would think individual macro
> ob
On 4 April 2018 at 10:21, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russell Standish
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now, is a jellyfish
> If that is true, the dissociative state can genuinely be identified with the
> death state, and, as far as we get there (with salvia for example), the
> experience cannot be memorised at all. In fact, it entails that we truly die,
> and the one who come back is truly “someone else”, and this i
Le jeu. 5 avr. 2018 13:42, Telmo Menezes a écrit :
> On 4 April 2018 at 10:21, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >> Hi Russell,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russell Standish
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:1
Thanks Quentin!
On 5 April 2018 at 15:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> Le jeu. 5 avr. 2018 13:42, Telmo Menezes a écrit :
>>
>> On 4 April 2018 at 10:21, Russell Standish wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> Hi Russell,
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 201
On 1 April 2018 at 07:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hey Mindey,
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Mindey I. wrote:
> > Why not to just define yourself, and then try to re-run yourself? If you
> > have a mathematical definition of your own self, you are already close to
> > living forever as a r
On 4/5/2018 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 3 Apr 2018, at 19:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/3/2018 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 3 Apr 2018, at 07:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/31/2018 1:30 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled,
say via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That
is, does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
13 matches
Mail list logo
