pending
on one's current priorities, etc.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
is group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Brent Meeker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> >[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
>> underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
>
> Your assumption of "underlying primitive physical reality" puts you
> in the l
are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in
> > accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined
> > by God, the All-Mighty. While t
r" will find the pasture.
A sheep that circles around the "door" will never find the pasture.
One who crosses over the "way" will reach the mansion. Anyone that
stops on the "way" and believes the "way" to be the end of his/her
journey, will be out in the ope
ear as daylight that this land has a single Lord of Perfection,
this world a single Owner of Majesty, this palace a single Maker of
Grace. May God be pleased with you for saving me from my former
obstinacy and foolishness. Each of the proofs you have offered is
sufficient to demonstrate the truth. Bu
gy back from wanting merging with
itself. (1 existing, energy all filling, all directional)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
10:11 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > Ronald,
>
> > Of course the main constraints are your audience, Star Trek fans, who
> > usually like talking about frontiers of physics and even mind/body
> > problem issues etc., but al
On Jul 12, 2:22 pm, ronaldheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or
> Level III?
The “Tegmark's levels” is pure simplification for the consumption by
laymen. There are no Multiverse levels; it is continuum of
On Jul 12, 2:22 pm, ronaldheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or
> Level III?
The “Tegmark's levels” is pure simplification for the consumption by
laymen. There are no Multiverse levels; it is continuum of
I would like to suggest a way of reconciling this situation for your
consideration. I have no proof as yet but if accepted and then used as a
vehicle of exploration and understanding of context I have found it to be a
useful.
A formal logic (an arbitrary calculus) is defined by 4 basic constitu
"Hal Finney" writes:
>
> : Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot
> : squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square
> : a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the
> : universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of
WO potential truths arise:
1) X is true. DEBATABLE
2) An utterance has happened. PROVEN.
This is precisely how I arrived at ONE and TWO above. Abandon philsophy at
yopur peril, but use it's output prudently and you will be of a broader ilk.
cheers,
Colin Hales
-Original Mes
[col]
I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers don;t type what I think.
That's the relaity of it! :-) Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast
because I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-)
[Lee]
You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:
Phi
Hi Imo,
I'd concur with Bruno in 'nice try'. I have lost count of the number of times I
have seen someone dive in with a proclaimation like yours. I include myself in
this :P
My reacent outburst is an example!
I can only encourage you to follow your ideaS and poke every eye you see. A bit
of Fe
Hi Bruno,
> Now look at science.
>
> We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
> consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
> of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
>
> AND THEN
>
> we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it u
> Hi Bruno,
>
>> Now look at science.
>>
>> We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
>> consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for
>> depictions of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
>>
>> AND THEN
>>
>> we deny phenomenal consciousness
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:]
May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the
wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be
discriminated as true
Lee wrote:
>Interesting note about "mind": there is no German language
>equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
>employing it. Teutonic zombies elided.>
>
>In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, "What is Thought?"
>by Eric Baum, the author decides to use "mind" as the nam
[Lee wrote:]
>Interesting note about "mind": there is no German language
>equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
>employing it. Teutonic zombies elided.>
>
>In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, "What is Thought?"
>by Eric Baum, the author decides to use "mind" as the n
[Lee wrote:]
>Interesting note about "mind": there is no German language
>equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
>employing it. Teutonic zombies elided.>
>
>In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, "What is Thought?"
>by Eric Baum, the author decides to use "mind" as the n
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brent Meeker writes:
> On 31-Jul-05, you wrote:
>
> > [-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote
> > as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
> ...
> > Our scientific evidentiary process is ba
John M:
>To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already
>HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not.
>At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced
>thinking community.
>
>John M
I think the name was a play the name of another book
"The discovery of the mind" by Bruno Snell
Se
Hi again,
I finally found the switch to prepend > onto my email!
To try and passivate Brent's angst a little
The model that I need to unfurl is huge. It's the biggest structure I have ever
devised. It has taken me years to create and test against all manner of brain
data (pathological
...continuing
For an example of the physics 'underlying reality':
see
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
take a look at all the papers and follow the references. The theoretical trail
leads to Prigogine and his far from equilibrium physics but based on
Stuff for Brent and more.
1) Phenomenality
Definition:
Block N. 2003. Consciousness, Philosophical Issues about. In: Nadel L, editor.
Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Nature Pub. Group.
>
> What's "phenomenality"? Did you look for it in a brain?
>
Yes. That's the whole issue. Phe
My final ramblings.
> From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Moi
> > Reality vs perception of reality? I vote we work really hard on the
> > latter and drop all ascription in relation to the former. A
> > significant dose of humility indeed.
>
>
Hi,
(via) Reality vs. Perception of Reality
In answer to Bruno’s recent comments on the old post:
* Thanks for helping me sort out my ‘Nagels’! I had them mixed up in EndNote.
* Young? 49 years young. Getting young and seemingly knowing less and less
every day. :-) This I seem to have to conclud
Lee Corbin
> I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
> beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
> do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
> concerning them.
>
> Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in
> a partic
> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:48 AM
> John writes
>
> > Lee and Stephen:
> > since we have only our subjective access to "out
> > there" does it make any difference if it is "REALLY?"
>
Lee Corbin
>
> Colin writes
>
> > ACCURACY
> > Extent to which a measurement matches an international standard.
> >
> > REPEATABILITY
> > Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement.
> >
> > For example the SICK DME 2000 laser distance measurement instrument
> > has an accura
Lee Corbin
>
> Colin writes
> > > > So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion,
> > > > but a systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable
> > > > illusion driven by measurement of the natural world where
> > > > its errors are not important - .ie. not mission fatal to the
> >
The various 'laws' of quantum mechanics, in the minds of those involved in
their study, have been discovered, as opposed to invented. In the quest to
explain their power in prediction of the behaviour of the natural world I can
make the following observation:
Let's say we do science on football
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 24 Aug 2005, at 02:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't even get past the axioms of COMP. They just don’t hold unless I delude
myself that the universe is driv
Hi Bruno,
The misinterpretations compounded and intermingled so much I decided to cut to
the meat of it.. I suspect that this dialogue will end in the usual way. Being
ignoredThe well worn path of COMP and all the things it says, the idea that
a multiverse explains something: these are en
Hi Lee,
Thanks for the 'ism clarification and for reminding me of my days on the
extropy list!
In my case the situation is a little more complex for me than simply boxing
myself into a single 'ism. I suppose I cannot claim COMP is 100% falsified for
it (computationalism) has a role in my model.
I beg the groups indulgenceA question
In your mind there is a great deal of mental manipulation of QM concepts. When
you do that what is your belief about what you are doing?:
a) Do you think you are manipulating(structuring/causally connecting) the stuff
of which the universe is made?
With a total response of 2 (including me) (Thanks Russel!)...
The results of my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of the status of QM as
being that of appearances., although with an N of 2 I'd be a bit optimistic to
get the P value down to anywhere near significance... oh well...
Based on this
Pete Carlton
> Hi Marc --
>
> it's interesting to wonder about "what it would be like" to directly
> perceive mathematics -- but we also have to acknowledge when we ask
> the question, what are the philosophical assumptions we're smuggling
> along. For instance, the human brain is not capable of
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 1Z
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 AM
> To: Everything List
> Subject: Re: Numbers
>
>
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>
> > That
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and
existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any
comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper:
---
A Scientifi
I mean not so sound supercilious, but I must admit that all counterarguments thus far
received are points I have foreseen and chosen to omit in the paper for the sake of
length and inherent stupidity of my evaluators. This is why I have come here for
intelligent recluse, as it is, so far, the o
I am confused about the relationship between relative state and
decoherence in the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM. My understanding of
MWI is that as the universal wavefunction evolves, components of it
decohere from each other, and when this happens we can think of it as the
world spliting into
Max Tegmark's Many Worlds paper (quant-ph/9709032) gives an experiment
called quantum suicide for testing the Many Worlds Interpretation. It
seems possible a variant of this experiment could be used to test the idea
that all universes exist (is there a shorter name for this idea?).
Basicly the e
46 matches
Mail list logo
