Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/21/2018

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM, wrote: >> >> Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: >> >> BB(1) =1 >> BB(2) =6 >> BB(3) =21 >> BB(4) =107 >> > > *>You haven't *written* the function, just its alleged values for > 1,2,3,4. What is the function? * > Starting with a all

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:43 PM wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:22:04 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote: >> >>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I >>> really don't understand what it is, or why it's important.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, is typical for the  superposition of tensor

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:05:15 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:43 PM, > > wrote: > > > >> *Can you write a function which is not computable? * > > > Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: > > BB(1) =1 > BB(2) =6 > BB(3) =21 > BB(4) =107

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:06 AM wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote:

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 2:01:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:43 PM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:22:04 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote: >>> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:59:30 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Aug 2018, at 08:16, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really > don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct > words from

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:22:04 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM > wrote: > >> I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really >> don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct >> words from the usual

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:43 PM, wrote: > > *Can you write a function which is not computable? * Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that: BB(1) =1 BB(2) =6 BB(3) =21 BB(4) =107 But those are the only values we've be able to calculate with certainty, the problem is the

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:19:43 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:06 AM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52

beautiful visualization of the first million integers

Each integer is represented as a vector of its prime factors, in a high-dimensionality representation such that: [1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ...] means that the number has factors 2 and 5 (first and third primes). Then they apply a dimensionality reduction algorithm to transform these vectors into 2D vectors

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 20:54, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> If everything is digital, >> >> >> 99,98 % of the arithmetical reality is not digitally emulable. Only >> brain and computers are digital with mechanism. Our body are not.

Re: beautiful visualization of the first million integers

Thank you. It looks really good. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 21:00, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The consequence of the brain being digitally emulable at some relevant level >> entails that matter obeys the laws of the formal mathematics of Z1 and Z1* >> (and others). > > As I

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 21:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/20/2018 9:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > We

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 22:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 6:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only you understand Everett.