Hi all -- it's been a long time since I've participated in this group.
I've been lurking for a few days, and am very pleased with the quality
of the posts that I've read! It's good to see that this discussion
continues!
Some comments below.
Tim May wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 03:40
Is anyone familiar with this, at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ ?
It's a collaborative effort to develop and organize
philosophical theories in a kind of organic, constantly
improving structure.
While reading the archives of this list, I've been blown
away by how much good material there is in there
Wei Dai wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 01:54:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > To answer your question, I could say that, in my opinion, the real essence of
> > the world is disorder. The world is becoming undone every Planck time and is
> > also reconstituted every Planck Time, as Jam
I enjoyed this post very much. I have one question and a comment.
Q: I didn't know that the most general field for a vector space
is the set of complex numbers; why is this so?
Comment: You ask why QM should be linear. In the MWI FAQ, Price
gives a good Anthropic argument for why this should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It's something of a semantic difference whether worlds should be said
> to fuse in the MWI.
Maybe, but you might also say that it's a semantic difference to
say that they split. I'm saying that, if you allow that they split,
then, in the same sense, they also fuse.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Chris, this is a scary story It points to the fact that there is a need
> for a MW ethics. I also independently discovered QT immortality several years
> ago.
Yes, I think I've found a new ethics, which I alluded to in the end when
I said that I care about my wif
Devin Harris wrote:
> Again, the question of how infinite is the Universe that
> contains MWs. Or said otherwise, how vast or how ruled is
> the possible world, assuming all possibilities exist?
I posted about this before, in
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/index.html?mID=674.
I think
Jerry Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > Let R be the ratio of blue to green SAS's, R = b/g. I want to compute
> > the probability distribution as a function of R on the domain [0,1]:
> >
>
> I'm assuming you mean 'R = b/(b+g)'...
Right. Thanks!
> >
> > P(R) P(1 blue | R)
> >
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and the
> ideas presented overlap to a degree with my own, but there is one question
> that I have, if I may, which I mention below.
>
> From: Chr
This reply is a little stale, but here goes anyway:
Marchal wrote:
>
> George Levy wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 99-06-30 11:20:07 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> ><< Precisely: Maudlin and me have proved that:
> >
> > NOT compORNOT sup-phys
> >
> > i.e. computati
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > As for flying rabbits, one appeared on my ceiling as I was reading your
> > post, but as it was only there for 10E-43 seconds, I did not notice it.
> The
> > odds against it remaining there fo
Jerry Clark wrote:
>
> Such 'Life' evolution raises an interesting question: These SAS's would ...
> Sooner or later a physicists would hear about
> this new development and the realisation would be made that their universe
> *is* a Life simulation.
Would it? This is a questions I've thought
Okay, but remember that this is a *thought* experiment. I assume
the existence of a machine that can take an instantaneous
"snapshot" of a person and produce an *exact* duplicate at
another location. There are two (at least) implicit metaphysical
assumptions here:
- I assume that the copy wil
"Jacques M. Mallah" wrote:
>
> > relative SSA predicts that the observer will see at the next instant
> > of time an observer moment with the greatest measure, subject to its
> > lying in the future of the current observer moment. That measure may
> > be fantastically small (eg just prior to a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You all seem to assign to "measure" a soul-like quality as if measure had any
> value, as if it is "good" to maximize measure, as if measure has an
> objective, and absolute existence.. like the Ether.
>
> I believe that in fact, the probability of observing an eve
Higgo James wrote:
>
> Well said, but I'm not sure your definition of 'I' holds. There are
> infinitely many 'Chris Maloneys' born in a hospital of the same name of
> parents of the same name... etc etc etc who are in no way connected with
> you. Besides, these identifiers are all social naming c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I just want to be more explicit in my characterization of the guardian
> angels, the fatalisitic slobs and the narcissistic gods.
>
George,
I don't know how you justify dividing the ETs into such neat
categories, based on the MWI and the feasability of QS. That
17 matches
Mail list logo
