RE: The arrow of time is the easiest computational direction for life in the manifold

2009-01-24 Thread Jesse Mazer
Right. It's generally thought that the direction of increasing entropy is defined by the expansion of the universe since the expansion increases the available states for matter. But it's hard to show that this must also determine the radiation arrow of time.On the contrary, no

RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
Ah, never mind, rereading your post I think I see where I misunderstood you--you weren't saying nothing in QM says anything about the amplitude of an eigenvector that you square to get the probability of measuring that eigenvector's eigenvalue, you were saying nothing in QM says anything about

RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
His discussion of the Born rule is incorrect. The probability given by the Born rule is not the square of the state vector, but rather the square modulus of the inner product of some eigenvector with the original state, appropriately normalised to make it a probability. After observation,

RE: briefly wading back into the fray

2009-02-07 Thread Jesse Mazer
It seems to me that discussions of quantum immortality often founder on the fact that people don't make their assumptions about philosophy of mind explicit, or don't have a well-thought-out position on metaphysical issues relating to mind in the first place. For example, Jaques, are you

RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
Russell Standish wrote: According to Wikipedia, Born's rule is that the probability of an observed result \lambda_i is given by \psi|P_i|\psi, where P_i is the projection onto the eigenspace corresponding to \lambda_i of the observable. This formula is only correct if \psi is normalised.

RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:47:02 +1100 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah] Jesse, you need to fix up your email client to follow the usual quoting conventions, wrap lines etc. I'm using hotmail, any

RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: laserma...@hotmail.com To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah] Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 20:33:52 -0500 I don't understand, why is this implied by what Jacques or I said? My comment was that the Born

RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-08 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah] All I have ever said was that effective probability given by the squared norm of the projected eigenvector does not follow from

RE: children and measure

2009-02-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
Brent Meeker wrote: Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces reduces the measure of each subspace. But there's no

RE: children and measure

2009-02-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
2009/2/11 Quentin Anciaux Because the point is to know from a 1st person perspective that it exists a next subjective moment... if there is, QI holds. Even if in the majority of universes I'm dead... from 1st perspective I cannot be dead hence the only moments that count is where I

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Brent Meeker wrote: I think meaning ultimately must be grounded in action. That's why it's hard to see where the meaning lies in a computation, something that is just the manipulation of strings. People tend to say the meaning is in the interpretation, noting that the same string of 1s

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-28 Thread Jesse Mazer
Kelly wrote: Not if information exists platonically. So the question is, what does it mean for a physical system to represent a certain piece of information? With the correct one-time pad, any desired information can be extracted from any random block of data obtained by making any

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: stath...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:24:35 +1000 Subject: Re: Consciousness is information? To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2009/4/29 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com: Kelly wrote: Not if information exists platonically. So the question is, what does it mean

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
Bruno wrote: On 29 Apr 2009, at 00:25, Jesse Mazer wrote: and I think it's also the idea behind Maudlin's Olympia thought experiment as well. Maudlin's Olympia, or the Movie Graph Argument are completely different. Those are arguments showing that computationalism is incompatible

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Consciousness is information? Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:19:56 +0200 Maudlin's point is that the causal structure has no physical role But I'm not convinced that the basic Olympia machine he describes doesn't already

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-30 Thread Jesse Mazer
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2009, at 23:30, Jesse Mazer wrote: But I'm not convinced that the basic Olympia machine he describes doesn't already have a complex causal structure--the causal structure would be in the way different troughs influence each other via the pipe system he describes

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
I found a paper on the Mandelbrot set and computability, I understand very little but maybe Bruno would be able to follow it: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CC/0604003 The same author has a shorter outline or slides for a presentation on this subject at

RE: Temporary Reality

2009-05-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Temporary Reality From: daddycay...@msn.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4 daddycay...@msn.com: I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff,

RE: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-14 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hi Bruno, I meant to reply to this earlier: From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Consciousness is information? Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:45:13 +0200 On 30 Apr 2009, at 18:29, Jesse Mazer wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2009, at 23:30, Jesse Mazer

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:43:59 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Bruno Marchal skrev: 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I hope you agree we can describe it by the

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:16 +0200 Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries From: allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se: Bruno Marchal skrev: On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:23:04 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Quentin Anciaux skrev: If you are ultrafinitist then by definition the set N does not exist... (nor any infinite set countably or

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:33:47 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Brian Tenneson skrev: On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se wrote:

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:33:47 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries 2

2009-06-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
If it helps, here's a screenshot of how the symbols are supposed to look: http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3345/picture2uzk.png From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries 2 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 22:36:01 +0200 Marty,

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:38:23 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries You don't justify definitions. How would you justify Peano's axioms as being the right ones? You are just confirming my

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:22:10 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:20:39 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:22:10 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-10 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:18:10 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:38:23 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-10 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:03:26 +0200 On 10 Jun 2009, at 01:50, Jesse Mazer wrote: Isn't this based on the idea that there should be an objective truth about every well-formed

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-11 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:04:17 +0200 On 10 Jun 2009, at 20:17, Jesse Mazer wrote: From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:40:14 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:18:10 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:31:46 +0200 On 11 Jun 2009, at 21:43, Jesse Mazer wrote: Countably infinite does not mean recursively countably infinite. This is something which I

RE: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:05:22 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:40:14 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is This leads to major difficulties, even before approaching the consciousness

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. But what is this primary matter

RE: A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
David Nyman wrote: On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: I've seen John Baez suggest that For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut). In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com However, some physicists - Julian Barbour for one - use the term in a way that clearly has reference, as I think does Bruno. Any Platonists

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 18 Aug, 10:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:32:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 18 Aug, 12:00, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: david.ny...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:03:39 +0100 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I completely agree that **assuming primary matter** computation is a physical process taking place in

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
Seems like this post didn't go through, so I'll resend it: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 009/8/19 Flammarion

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 19 Aug, 13:03, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 009/8/19 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I completely agree that **assuming

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:56:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 19 Aug, 21:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-20 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:23:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: david.ny...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 20 Aug, 10:09, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal activity.

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:13:54 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff Flammarion wrote: ... We might call these three notions of existence Q-existence, M- existence and C-existence for short. My argument with you

RE: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-04 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:21:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting

RE: list archive

2009-09-21 Thread Jesse Mazer
You can see a list of messages by date here: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/maillist.html Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:31:14 +0200 Subject: list archive From: m.dobsi...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Hi everybody, I had a hard disk failure

RE: problem of size '10

2010-02-22 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800 From: jackmal...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: problem of size '10 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com --- On Fri, 2/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Jack Mallah wrote: --- On Thu, 2/11/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be MGA is more

RE: problem of size '10

2010-02-22 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:42:17 -0800 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: problem of size '10 Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800 From: jackmal...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: problem of size '10 To: everything

RE: problem of size '10

2010-02-22 Thread Jesse Mazer
. --- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Jack, to me the idea that counterfactuals would be essential to defining what counts as an implementation has always seemed counterintuitive for reasons separate from the Olympia or movie-graph argument. The thought-experiment I'd

RE: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds

2010-02-22 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:42:54 -0800 Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds From: charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Feb 23, 6:08 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote: If we accept what the laws of physics appear to say, that nature is for the

test

2010-02-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
I've been having some trouble with the formatting of messages from my hotmail account, so I'm trying to see if I can send messages to the list from my gmail account instead...just a test, nothing to see here folks... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: test

2010-02-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hmm, the last message did show up on googlegroups at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/c514d9710a49e9b0but it didn't show up in my inbox. Maybe there's just a random delay? Anyway, I'll try again and see what happens... On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Jesse

RE: problem of size '10

2010-02-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
of the everything-list emails for a few days. --- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Jack, to me the idea that counterfactuals would be essential to defining what counts as an implementation has always seemed counterintuitive for reasons separate from the Olympia

Re: problem of size '10

2010-02-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
of the everything-list emails for a few days. --- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Jack, to me the idea that counterfactuals would be essential to defining what counts as an implementation has always seemed counterintuitive for reasons separate from the Olympia

Re: problem of size '10

2010-02-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com wrote: My last post worked (I got it in my email). I'll repost one later and then post on the measure thread - though it's still a very busy time for me so maybe not today. --- On Mon, 2/22/10, Jesse Mazer laserma

Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds

2010-02-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:58:20 -0800 Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds From: charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Feb 23, 7:13 pm, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Having read the book a while ago, my memory is that Price offered this idea

Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds

2010-02-24 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.comwrote: The point about amplification is that all normal detection events require amplification, such as photographic film, photomultipliers and so on. We never detect a quantum event directly, but rather the result of

Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds

2010-02-24 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Penrose also devotes chapter 7 of his book The Emperor's New Mind to the topic of Cosmology and the Arrow of Time (parts of which can be viewed at http://books.google.com/books?id=DNd2K6mxLpIClpg=PP1pg=PA506#v

RE: problem of size '10

2010-02-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: stath...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:23:55 +1100 Subject: Re: problem of size '10 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 23 February 2010 04:45, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: It seems that these thought experiments inevitably lead to considering a digital

Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds

2010-02-27 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: I think it's an example of the radiation arrow of time making a

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-04-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:53 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Probably most of you are familiar with this already, BUT, just in case anyone has any interesting comments... If physicalism is true, your memories are almost certainly false. Consider: Entropy is a

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I think you've got the argument wrong. I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :) I suppose it depends what you mean

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would necessarily start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com

Re: The past hypothesis

2010-05-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Sure we can, because part of the meaning of random, the very thing that lost us the information, includes each square having the same measure

RE: Civilization-level quantum suicide

2010-07-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit. Because I know that I know how to persuade him of the truth based on evidence *and* emotion. I can prove to him, personally, that I am God, and that I created the universe. And he will believe it. Because I can show him a

RE: Civilization-level quantum suicide

2010-07-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:10:23 -0700 Subject: RE: Civilization-level quantum suicide From: her...@acm.org To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Mark, if you're not kidding here I honestly think you may be experiencing some kind of mental disorder, perhaps a manic state (good

RE: Civilization-level quantum suicide

2010-07-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
Please, seek medical help. If you're right, you lose nothing and might convince at least the psychiatrist you talk to. If I'm right, you get cured. It can't do you any harm, but leaving what looks to me like a serious illness untreated may well do you some serious harm. Look, I've

Re: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Doubt

2012-10-18 Thread Jesse Mazer
There was another article about this group's work back in September, at http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394-- it seems as though this is not really about contradicting the mathematical form of uncertainty in the equations of quantum mechanics, but

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

2012-11-30 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno,

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-05-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote: To make the general idea more clear , suppose we are proving the well- known formula S = ah/2 for the area of a triangle. Our proof will necessarily begin as follows: “Let us consider AN ARBITRARY triangle…” Here

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-05-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote: *The notion of choosing isn't actually important--if a proof says something like pick an arbitrary member of the set X, and you will find it obeys Y, this is equivalent to the statement every member of the set X

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-05-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote: It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite set since, as is known from psycology, a man can consider no more than 7 objects simultaneously. That's just about the number of distinct

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-05-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote: 3)We have agfeed that the choice of an arbitrary element is not a random chaice and is not a choice determinate by some law. 4)Therefore I do call it a free will choice in mathematics. One can consider it as a

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-05-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jesse, Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning some y subset Y identified by some function i or mapping j that is not a subset (or faithfully represented) in X, yet x = y : x

Re: free will and mathematics

2012-05-30 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 5/29/2012 11:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jesse, Would it be correct to think of arbitrary as used here as meaning some

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

2012-08-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says: 'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be self-referential proof by contradiction, except to mention that Penrose in Shadows of the

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

2012-08-23 Thread Jesse Mazer
suggesting he had read through the whole thing carefully? If not it's possible he skimmed it and missed that sentence, or just read the abstract and decided it didn't interest him, but sent the note out of politeness. Jesse On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

2012-08-24 Thread Jesse Mazer
, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says: 'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be self-referential proof

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: And of course it is OBVIOUS that the twins share a common present moment when they compare clocks. Otherwise they couldn't compare clocks now could they? The fact that they can compare clocks, and agree for example that

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that they can compare clocks, and agree for example that twin A's turning 30 coincides with twin B's turning 40, is because they are making the comparison at the same point in spacetime (assuming ideal point

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, that being at the same point in spacetime is CALLED the present moment that I'm talking about. But your present moment goes beyond that and says that there is an objective common present moment for events

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Not correct. My present moment does NOT say that there is an objective common present moment for events that are *not* at the same point in spaceTIME (my emphasis). My theory says that there is a common universal

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, PS: If coordinate time is just saying that when the twins meet up again they are actually at the SAME point in spacetime, but we don't know (can't agree) what clock time that corresponds to then I agree completely.

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Consider another case: Consider every observer in the entire universe. Every one of them is always currently in their own local actual time, their present moment. Are you just asserting your presentist views,

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface of a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots around that world for exact intervals of the speed of light, in which case the light

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-02-02 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
Good suggestions. 12 Monkeys is also a good depiction of time travel in a block universe--and for a comedy take, the Bill Ted movies fit together perfectly with block time as well! (as long as you take for granted that the historical figures they bring along never spoke publicly about their trips

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for developing

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at the edge of relativity or at its

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein believed in block time. I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual quotes from them but you have been unable to

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken metaphorically at times

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-03 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >