Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Richard,
I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather
from the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of
positive energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too
some kind of polarity seems to hold. The point is that
Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your explanation, but I'm afraid it doesn't really help me.
The main reason is no doubt my own stupidity, since most of what you say
goes over my head. I understand some physics, but it must be explained
to me in non-mathematical terms, otherwise I don't
I am with you that generally Krauss does a good job of popularizations
of cosmology and so on. He is generally quite careful and accurate in
his book A Universe from Nothing, except on page 166, where he says
There is one universe in which the total energy is definitely and
precisely zero
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can
never see the back of your own head.
Obviously if it expands forever you
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores
determinacy and locality in the 3p big physical picture. In the MW
theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality, without using
anything non local, or instantaneous. I took Aspect experiment
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores
determinacy and locality in the 3p big physical picture. In the MW
theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality, without
LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2014 09:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say that expansion of the universe is almost necessary, not
contingent. The AoT has to point in the direction of entropy
increase and in almost all models that's correlated
LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2014 14:59, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
I agree that the past hypothesis, while it explains the
thermodynamic AoT, itself stands in need of explanation. This is the
great unsolved problem of cosmology
LizR wrote:
On 10 November 2014 16:01, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 8 November 2014 16:53, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl
meekerdb wrote:
On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:59:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I agree that the past hypothesis, while it explains the
thermodynamic AoT, itself stands in need of explanation. This is the
great unsolved problem of cosmology -- at least according to many
cosmologists
the entropy of
a simple classical plasma or gas, and it does not change much with the
expansion once one enters the matter dominated phase of the universe.
Bruce
Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:59:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I agree that the past
John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Loschmidt's idea was that an isolated column of gas in a
gravitational field would develop a temperature gradient, warmer at
the top.
I believe that would be cooler at
meekerdb wrote:
On 11/22/2014 8:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Loschmidt's idea was that an isolated column of gas in a
gravitational field would develop a temperature gradient
meekerdb wrote:
On 11/22/2014 10:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 11/22/2014 8:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Loschmidt's idea was that an isolated column of gas
LizR wrote:
On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so,
or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that
George wrote:
Thanks Bruno, Bruce, Brent, Liz, John for your responses.
1) Regarding convection currents in a gas column with an adiabatic
temperature profile. There is no convection current even though gas near
the floor is hotter than gas near the ceiling. The reason is that gas
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same
energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world.
So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by
the number of
Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon
Richard Ruquist wrote:
Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.
I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek:
http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf
Bruce
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell
meekerdb wrote:
ISTM there are two ways of looking at it. In one you say before the
event there were several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites
a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened. The energy before x was the
same as after x, so energy is conserved. In the other you say x
LizR wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one
aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are
LizR wrote:
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are
losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.
The reports I have seen about possible detection of dark matter
annihilation events suggest a rate that is far too low to have any
appreciable
LizR wrote:
I don't understand how this works, so I can't comment on the details. I
seem to remember asking for a simple version that a dummy like me can
understand - and don't recall seeing it, although maybe I missed it.
But in any case the 2nd law isn't a law of physics, it's just what
LizR wrote:
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the
same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's
an
with the geral
expansion. It is only more distant, non-bound galaxies that move apart.
Bruce
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation
John Clark wrote:
Somebody said that they didn't want to sign up for Cryonics because they
were worried about ending up as a brain in a vat, and in any case they
believed in Everett's Many Worlds so it is unnecessary. Well, if Everett
is correct then you've already signed up for Cryonics in
John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
What's wrong with oblivion?
It's just not my cup of tea, but if you feel differently that's fine,
there is no disputing maters of taste.
If you are made total oblivious -- enter oblivion -- you
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
John Clark wrote:
Somebody said that they didn't want to sign up for Cryonics
because they were worried about ending up as a brain in a vat,
and in any case
Jason Resch wrote:
On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
What's wrong
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
It might be a common human trait to fear oblivion, but it is even
more irrational than belief in an afterlife.
The fact that you've obviously lived long enough
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
An instinct for self-preservation is unrelated to whether or not
you have a fear of death, or of oblivion
Unrelated?? Don't be ridiculous! Why the hell do you imagine Evolution
invented the fear of death
LizR wrote:
On 22 December 2014 at 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for
billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not
suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.'
spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
And, the question *not* to ask Twain would have been, did you feel like
this when your young daughter died? See, its not just about the
splendid ego of the jolly, smug, atheist; but involves everybody. As
good as the atheist is at shuffling off to Buffalo,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
An instinct for self-preservation
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Evolution gave living things an instinct for self-preservation. But you can
have such an instinct operating healthily and still not fear death.
Unrelated? Bob and Don are crossing a street when a large
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Following that reasoning, do you believe there is nothing wrong
with murder?
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
I don't think Stathis
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bob and Don are crossing a street when a large truck turns
a corner and is heading straight for both of them. Bob has a fear of
death but Don
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
If there's nothing wrong with oblivion, and murder leads to
oblivion, then there's nothing wrong with murder.
You slip too easily from
meekerdb wrote:
On 12/21/2014 6:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Who said it was irrational to stop an experience that one finds
pleasurable? All I am saying is that death comes to us all, and that
it is irrational to fear death per se, because once you are dead you
are not around to worry about
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/21/2014 5:09 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett
Following that reasoning, do you believe there is nothing
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote
John Clark wrote:
And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you
learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going
to put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit
apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1)
1000,000 $, 2) total amnesia of the torture?
These artificial situations are hard to evaluate. I would say, however,
that people are often prepared to put up with considerable pain and
inconvenience
zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
John Clark wrote:
And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that
if you
learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was
going
to put
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:
Turing Test Fail
Have you never heard of, or seen, courage in the face of death?
Often taken as the true test of manhood!
It wouldn't require courage if death were no big
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 December 2014 at 23:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Dec 2014, at 06:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
If death leads to oblivion, then there isn't much to worry about.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 23 December 2014 at 17:46, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 December 2014 at 23:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Dec 2014, at 06:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Samiya
John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe
that if you learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a
firing squad
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Dec 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/22/2014 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Dec 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/20/2014 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Most legal systems punish murder more than any other crime, and
those that have the death
zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014 10:18:55 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
Have you never heard of, or seen, courage in the face of death? Often
taken as the true test of manhood!
Bruce
Bruce, Courage is acting in the face of fear, where the action speaks
to
John Clark wrote:
With several bullets inserted into your brain with high power rifles
you're head will explode within a fraction of a second and you're not
going to feel any pain, but you're sure as hell going feel some fear the
night before thinking about it.
I am reminded of Edward
John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
I wouldn't fear death even then.
Then you're either the bravest man who ever lived or you're
full of bullshit. I think it's far
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
LizR wrote:
I think English, French, German all start composite numbers around 13?
(Maybe a Christian influence?)
I'm not sure you can deduce base 2 from half-eyed etc. And I imagine 5
was given a different design because it makes a full hand, so to speak.
I imagine types of music that evolved
John Clark wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following
statements is true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the
meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2015 4:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
In Russell's Theory of Nothing he says that the informational
content of the universe was entirely present at whatever
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you write below. Current
writing by cosmologists etc on getting a universe from nothing assume
the prior existence of at least a background space-time. More usually,
this is assumed to be the vacuum of quantum field theory. So there is a
clear
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of a
universe from nothing is absurd
Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Kellett
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 9:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/17/2015 2:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll saying
about how to interpret stationary states in quantum mechanics, too.
This is one of the more interesting questions Sean raises and I am
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll saying about
how to interpret stationary states in quantum mechanics, too.
This is one of the more interesting questions Sean raises and I am not
sure I have fully understood his answer to the main problem.
John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Are you claiming that your anesthesiolgist only gives you drugs
until you appear unintelligent?
I am claiming that when I receive anesthesia I become both unintelligent
and
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:20:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators
LizR wrote:
I rarely get the chance to listen to talks (online or anywhere else) - I
don't suppose there's a paper or something giving same ideas?
Try Boddy, Carroll and Pollack:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0298
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs
are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious beings
see an ordered
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett
This comes back to my original question: since all possible
programs
are run by the dovetailer
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
The calculation written out on paper is a static thing, but the result
of that calculation might still be part of a simulation that produces
consciousness. Though, unless Barbour is right and the actuality of
time
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 12:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
No, as I said, I do not think it is helpful to describe the sequence
of brain states as a calculation. If you simulate the actual brain
states by doing a lot of calculations on a computer, then you will
reproduce the original
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 12:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Another possibility is that all those neurons that /*didn't*/ fire in
the calculation were just as necessary to the experience as the one's
that did. That seems quite plausible to me.
I find the notion quite
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 12:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
As I said, conterfactual correctness has very little to do with the
actual conscious moment. That is given simply by the sequence of
actual brain states --
But what is a brain state. Can a part of the brain
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/30/2015 10:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
So prime numbers might exist_{math}, but they do not exist_{phys}. If
we keep this distinction clear we will avoid a lot of unnecessary
confusion.
I could have written that myself, Bruce. In fact I have. :-)
We have talked
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Mar 2015, at 10:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
OK. If all the connections and inputs remain intact, and the digital
simulation is accurate, I don't see a problem. But I might object if
the doctor plans to replace my brain with an abstract computation in
Platonia
Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/30/2015 10:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
So prime numbers might exist_{math}, but they do not exist_{phys}. If
we keep this distinction clear we will avoid a lot of unnecessary
confusion.
I could have written that myself, Bruce. In fact I have
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 11:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno has acknowledged that this is not what the MGA shows. MGA simply
shows that his version of computationalism is incompatible with
physical supervenience. This cannot be seen as surprising since it is
explicitly built
LizR wrote:
Russell,
I think your argument would be stronger if you said that playing a movie
through a projector is still a computation, albeit a simple one.
Obviously playing a movie in a media player on a computer involves
computation, but I can't see how that's relevant to the MGA - a
meekerdb wrote:
Bruno's theory may fair better with a Quantum Bayesian interpretation
than with MWI, since he hopes to take conscious states as more
fundamental and derive the physics. It would lead to idealism instead
of Platonism.
I know the typo was unintentional, but it amuses me to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:
So I would reject the computationalist program right at the start -- I
would not say Yes, doctor to that sort of AI program.
Nor do I.
That is why I say that my definition of computationalism is weaker than
most
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If just one physical law cannot be deduced from them, it means that
computationalism is false, and that consciousness requires something
else (God, primitive actual matter, or something that we just not yet
conceive).
I would like to see just one non-trivial physical
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I don't think that your arguments that consciousness cannot be
understood in terms of physical supervenience are very convincing. At
all the crucial points you simply appeal to the computationalist
hypothesis -- your
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
javascript
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of
Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is
(probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's
counterfactually correct if it doesn't
LizR wrote:
On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of
Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is
(probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's
counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass through any of the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 March 2015 at 16:54, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
It would take a vast amount of coding by hand to create a universe
filling in details of miracles occurring at multiple arbitrary points, as
opposed to an orderly universe with a few laws
LizR wrote:
On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a
real conscious AI)
2- You have (for example) a conversation with it.
3- While doing that conversation,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
In a phrase I have used before, It did not spring forth fully armed,
like Athena from Zeus's brow. Numbers were a hard-won abstraction from
everyday physical reality. They do not have any independent existence.
In which
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 12:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
You're saying the static written out calculation instantiates a bit of
consciousness? Does it matter in what language it is written or whether
anyone can read it? In some language it might just be a single line
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 11:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/28/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
The calculation written out on paper is a static thing, but the
result of that calculation might still be part of a simulation that
produces consciousness
LizR wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were supposed
to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
Yes, we see superpositions everywhere -- as Brent says, they are a
consequence of the mathematics of Hilbert space. A pure state in one
basis is a
(the state is an eigenstate of the
corresponding operator), and this means that there is no longer any
interference. The problem is that the operator for which this is true
may not be physically realizable in this (or any) world.
Bruce
Jason
On Monday, March 2, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:52:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer,
that they stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're
not contradictory, might all bases exist?)
Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote
LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why would
physics care about them?
You have an operator in a Hilbert space. This is an entirely abstract
concept until you choose a basis in which to
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:39:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But it isn't just a matter of what the observer is interested in. He
might well (as a classical physicist) be interested in the position
AND momentum of a particle - but nature forbids him defining a basis
in
meekerdb wrote:
One reason may be that the primary interactions important for life are
more position than momentum dependent. A tiger can only eat you if you
and the tiger are near each other. If there were beings that lived in
orbit then perhaps they would have evolved to directly
LizR wrote:
On 4 March 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why
would
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I have not read Peres' book, and looking at Amazon, it is not cheap!
Not cheap??? It's FREE!
http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf
Nothing's free! You have to pay for download
1 - 100 of 2396 matches
Mail list logo
