On 6/17/05, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You find yourself in a locked room with no windows, and no memory of how you
got there.
(...) a light (...) alternates between red and green every 10 minutes.
(...)
Every 10 minutes, the system alternates between two states. One
state
On 6/23/05, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Cavalcanti writes:
I don't think it is that good an analogy for the following reason:
I don't believe that pushing a button to create a copy of me in
New York will increase my expectation of experiencing New York,
while I believe
I can see an interesting new problem in this thread. Let me put it in a thought
experiment as the praxis in this list requires.
You are in the same torture room as before, but now the guy is going to
torture you to death. You have three options:
A: you flip a coin to decide whether you are
On 6/27/05, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for going on about this, but I'm still trying to understand: what
possible difference could it make to anyone - you or your copy - if you
suddenly disintegrated and were replaced a microsecond later with an exact
copy?
To
On 7/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi all. I am posting a want ad for a QM formalist who is
very conversant in the mathematical formalism. here is the proposal:
over the last few years I have developed an ad hoc theory that
I believe comes very close to the QM formalism.
Hi Bruno,
On 8/11/05, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am having a problem understanding this axiom:
(...) Lob formula (B(Bp-p)-Bp), the main axiom of the modal logic
of self-reference (G)
can be interpreted as showing that some form of honest placebo effect
works! But this is
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Aug 13, 2005 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Modal Logic
To: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Bruno,
On 8/13/05, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Eric,
I am having a problem understanding this axiom
Hi Bruno,
Can you give a particular example of a sentence p such that
B(Bp-p) is true?
Take any proposition you can prove, for example the tautology
(p - p), or t.
(...)
So once you have prove t, all the proposition of the shape
anyproposition - t
is easily deducible, by
Hi,
My name is Eric Cavalcanti, and I am joining this list.
As was solicited in the website, I am sending this Joining post with details
of my background.
I am a physicist, recently received my MSc in atomic physics.
I have been participating in the Fabric of Reality list for some time, so I
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply to this:
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can assume anything you like!
Seriously, we have had extensive and occasionally acrimonious debates
on this topic in the past, without much success or resolution. I think
that we have no good foundation
What do you mean by *entirely equal*?
- Original Message -
From: David Kwinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10:47 AM, Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
Let me stress
Also, what about a weighted version of the ASSA? I believe other animals
are
conscious and thus would qualify as observers/observer-moments, which
would
suggest I am extraordinarily lucky to find myself as an observer-moment
of
what seems like the most intelligent species on the
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: David Kwinter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean the absolutely exact same David Kwinter or Eric Cavalcanti as
was the moment before.
I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of exactly
equal copies. Nevertheless, I am sure I will only
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that a moment from now there will be a number of exactly
equal copies. Nevertheless, I am sure I will only experience being
one of them, so this is what I mean by ' me ' - the actual experiences
I will have. Maybe
Hi,
I found this post really thoughtful, but I didn't quite agree. Let's see if
I can argue on it:
Doesn't this part:
In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
happen to constitute a system that has self-referential qualities that
we call consciousness. If it
Hi,
I disagreed with some points in your argumentation...
- Original Message -
From: David Barrett-Lennard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm trying to define identity...
Let's write x~y if SAS's x and y (possibly in different universes) have
the same identity.
You did not yet 'define'
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Cavalcanti, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
In the case of non-destructive-copy experiment, the copy is
made in a distinct place/time from the original. They could as well be
done
100,000 years in the future
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings;
this reply has taken some time...
I don't quite agree with your point of view, and the reason is maybe
similar to our disagreement in my statement: It is not useful to talk
about 1st person experiences in
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When you said earlier that:
In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
happen to constitute a system that has self-referential
qualities that we call consciousness.
I would say I *own* a bunch of
I think this discussion might have already took place here,
but I will post this to take your opinions on the topic.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
happen or be lost?
Taking the double-slit experiment in mind, with paths A and B,
the first answer that comes to the mind
I think this discussion might have already took place
here, but I would like to take you opinions on this.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
happen or be lost?
Take the a double-slit-like experiment. A particle can take
two paths, A and B. We can in principle detect which
Hi Matt,
- Original Message -
From: Matt King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just my tuppenceworth...
Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
I think this discussion might have already took place
here, but I would like to take you opinions on this.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
- Original Message -
From: David Barrett-Lennard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xf2f75022aa10b5ef6c69f2f59f34b03e26cb5bdb467eec82780
didn't exist in this universe (with a very high probability, it being a
512 bit number, generated from physical system noise) before I've
generated it. Now it
Entering the discussion here...
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But even this goes way out in front of what we can possibly know. You
say we have no idea what these feelings are like to experience--but why
should we assume we even are entitled to ask this
Pete, I hope you don't mind my replying to the list.
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But even this goes way out in front of what we can possibly know. You
say we have no idea what these feelings are like to experience--but
why
should we assume we
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Carlton wrote:
In any case, I grant that the blind man's experience would be quite
different from someone who's actually looking at the color red. This is
just because the functional states of someone who is
that there are no consciousness -- so what the question is really
asking?.
Well my remark adds nothing in the sense that Eric Cavalcanti
succeeds apparently to pinpoint the contradiction in Pete's post
(through the use of Frank Jackson's colorblind Mary experiment).
Nice piece of dialog. Actually I
Dear colleagues,
this email is to draw your attention to a ban on scientific publications
for authors of countries for which the USA declared a trade embargo.
Under the terms of the trade embargo, a publisher of a journal that
accepts a scientific paper from an author residing in Libya, Iran,
Hi there,
Well, it is a good try, but it has been proven wrong already indeed.
To see a better refutal, see Feynman's popular book 'QED'.
For instance, that theory seems even better once you realize that it
also acounts for the inverse-square law.
But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that
Oops, I realize that it wasn't in 'QED' but in the 'Lectures' that I
read that...
- Original Message -
From: Eric Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull
AAAghhh!!!
I didn't read it carefully again!!!
Yes, it is not even-money. In the infinite
players case, even though you are equally
likely to win or lose, you win money in the
long run.
I am going to sleep... :)
Eric.
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 17:52, Kory Heath wrote:
At 12:20 AM 10/11/2004,
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 22:51, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As a Price, I give you the (known?) Smullyan McCarthy
As a Price, or a Prize? :)
puzzle. You are in front of three Gods: the God of Knights, the
God of Knaves, and the God of Knives. The God of Knight always
tells the truth. The God of
I have read some stuff on Nick Bostrom's page
(http://nickbostrom.com/) and while in general
I agree with his conclusions about
observation-selection effects, there is one
example which I am not sure I understand.
It is the one about cars in the next lane going
faster:
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 10:42, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Eric Cavalcanti writes:
QUOTE-
And this is the case where this problem is most paradoxical.
We are very likely to have one of the lanes more crowded than
the other; most of the drivers reasoning would thus, by chance,
be in the more
I always forget to reply-to-all in this list.
So below goes my reply which went only to Hal Finney.
-Forwarded Message-
From: Eric Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Observation selection effects
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:57:14 +1000
On Tue
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
I always forget to reply-to-all in this list.
So below goes my reply which went only to Hal Finney.
-Forwarded Message-
From: Eric Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Think about if the odd number of players was exactly
one. You're
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
[...]
The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
[once you notice it].
The problem
I think some of the discussions about COMP and simulating people
could be better understood if we can first understand a (much)
simpler problem: a harmonic oscillator.
The relevance of this is that ultimately there might be no meaning
in saying that a string in Platonia or wherever represents
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 11:46, Hal Finney wrote:
Eric Cavalcanti writes:
Let's define a turing machine M with a set of internal states Q,
an initial state s, a binary alphabet G={0,1}. The transition
function is f: Q X G - Q X G X {L,R} , i.e., the function
determines from the internal
39 matches
Mail list logo
