unsubscribe
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For m
I am sorry but I have to ask: why would "minds" be quantum
mechanical but "bat minds" be classical in your suspicions?
I am not sure I am being "batocentric" here but I can anticipate
a lot of bats waving their wings in disagreament...
-Joao
Stephen Paul King wrote:
> [SPK]
>
> Yes. I stro
my writting gave you that opinion. I meant to imply that
> any mind, including that of a bat, is quantum mechanical and not classical
> in its nature. My ideas follow the implications of Hitoshi Kitada's theory
> of Local Time.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> -
ome hope of physical realization?
Now, I am only paying my 2 cents of wisdom so don't count on my answering
this one
Cordially,
-Joao Leao
P.S. - Happy New Year Everybody on Everything...
Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> >>Also, any quantum com
igned ideas concerning the possibility of using Quantum
Gravity as a basis for understanding the psychology of mathematical
invention are perhaps worth a second look now that we are learning a
good deal more about quantum information in Black Holes etc...
-Joao Leao
Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
n-locality) that we came to associate with quantum
information processing. What we lack is a genuinely quantum model of
computation that could be mathematically tractable as the Turing or Post
models and can account for entanglement in all its glory.
-Joao Leao
scerir wrote:
> [Tim May, in ano
e Path Integral technique demonstrates...
Enough said.
-Joao
Tim May wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 07:02 AM, Joao Leao wrote:
>
> > I don't agree with Tim's suggestion that infinite-dimensional Hilbert
> > spaces
> > are somewhat "ancilliary&qu
The Borromean ring analogy to the GHZ state is due to Aravind.
On the same thematic, i.e., that there may be a simple topological
analogy to the structure of multipartite entanglement there are
a couple of papers by Zapatrin:
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0211077
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/020
ettle...
>
> Which is why I think a list like this, with open discussion of speculations
> *besides* the conventionally-sanctioned speculations, is such a good thing.
>
> -- Ben Goertzel
Ditto,
-Joao Leao
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smith
(as a species
> and clad) by the time the reply arrives.
I'd say that by your count we are already gone!
In any case nothing you say above appears relevant to the
gist of Fermi's argument which is taken perhaps too seriously
by many of ET's friends! The best answer I have heard i
nows" in this very
precise sense where and when it will be absorbed!
That we do not know our future in the same way is our problem,
not Quantum Mechanics and presummably not a quantum mechanical one...
-Joao Leao
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ha
our finite computational capabilities
is an entirely more profound statement than any of
Deutsch dubious speculations...
-Joao Leao
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lennart Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> S
hat bases their belief in faith or
> reason?
>
> Sincerly,
>
> Stephen
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Lennart Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Joao Leao wrote:
> James N Rose wrote:
>
> > Joao wrote:
> >
> > "Speaking as a devout Platonist ..."
> >
> > About 7 years ago I realized there was
> > a severe contradiction resident in modern
> > concepts of Being.
> >
> &g
7;t see how it could have been
otherwise...
>
>
> CMR
>
> <--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here-->
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:51 AM
I care... This is a different in
> > "extension" which is much easier to grasp than one
> > of intention, but it is the same think.
> >
> > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
> > >
> > > James Rose
> >
> > I am afraid you are obvi
The answer is that an incomplete arithmetic axiom system could presumably
by consistent, but who cares? If it is incomplete there will be true statements
that it cannot prove and we are back to the platonist position! The alternative
of an inconsistent system that is complete may actually be more
James N Rose wrote:
> Joao,
>
> :-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
> but, he was also unaware of the importance
> that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
> are resident in any information relation situation,
> as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
> and gives validat
is: it doesn't. Model Theory, in which Tarsky
built a workable notion of truth is as subject to Godel Incompleteness as any
other system of of axioms beyond a certain size. Basically the only
mathematical
models that do not suffer from this problem are isomorphic to binary boolean
algebra of
James N Rose wrote:
> Joao Leao wrote:
> >
> > James N Rose wrote:
> >
> > > Joao,
> > >
> > > :-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
> > > but, he was also unaware of the importance
> > > that -mechanism- -real com
Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Joao Leao wrote:
>
> >Jesse Mazer wrote:
> >
> > > As I think Bruno Marchal mentioned in a recent post, mathematicians use
> >the
> > > word "model" differently than physicists or other scientists. But again,
> >I
( though Apple is
probably at work on an iClock as we speak !).
-Joao Leao
George Levy wrote:
> Hi Doriano,
>
> Welcome to the list.
>
> You raise an interesting problem and. I don't know the answer to your
> question. However, I just want to point out that an observer i
lved in
what is called "SuperTuring computing" spiked by the whole
Quantum Computing revolution but not limited to it...
The following paper deals with these issues specifically with some of
what Jesse Mazer brought up in this discussion:
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0305055
or
http://ali
mputations and
measurements are two classically distinct ways to "reach"
(produce, connect) numbers (though quantum computation
may yet suggest otherwise).
Cheers,
-Joao Leao
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have often try to explain what is mathematical realism.
> M
ot necessarily prove)
the attributes of a mathematical object,
than there is an EMR corresponding to
it." This is tentative, of course...
-Joao
-Joao Leao
scerir wrote:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system,
we can predict with certainty the value of
a physical quantity,
sion I give short and related
answers
to many post in one post.
Joao Leao ([EMAIL PROTECTED] ) wrote:
>By no means does this translate to the identification you
>suggest between what is empirical is what is... "incomplete",
>If anything physical reality sees mathematical reality &q
scerir wrote:
> Bruno Marchal:
>
> > In Bohm's theory there is no collapse of the wave.
>
> No collapse of the wave-function takes place upon measurement.
> One must obtain, nevertheless, the "reduced" wave-function of the
> system. Once a specific result has been obtained in a measurement,
> only
Thanks for these quotes. Bell's comparison still rings true. I think.
He was indeed enthusiastic about the GRW foray but that one also
has problems of its own.
-Joao
scerir wrote:
> "The Everett (?) theory of this section will simply be the pilot-wave
> theory without trajectories. Thus insta
scerir wrote:
> Joao wrote:
>
> > This not quite the case. In the Bohmian interpretation the "collapse"
> > is, in fact, determined by the non-local quantum potential pretty
> > much as the outcome of a critical phase transition which suppresses
> > all the branches of the superposition but the on
Hal Finney wrote:
> Joao Leao writes:
> > I don't believe that there is ANY question that QM is non-local! This is
> > the outcome of 30 years of experiments with entangled multiparticle
> > states. I also think that non-locality is pretty well defined in this
> &
Joao Leao wrote:
> Your Principles are correct but the wording is not:
> you should change all your use of *possible* to 'contingent'
> and qualify as 'possible' instead all the invocations of 'world'
> not qualified with *actual*. This because possible
in, I may be wrong.
-Joao Leao
Mirai Shounen wrote:
> Actually I wasn't thinking about "physically impossible things happening
> very rarely" (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things
> happening.
>
> If you consider quantum mechanics you are ri
These models with topological non-local features may not actually
have "outsides" by the same token that the Mobius band only has one
side, get it? Max Tegmark is a nice kid but he does not seem to deal
very well with his own finitude ! I am sure he is not the only one...
-Joao Lea
> - You can also repeat this procedure more times, in case of necessity.
I have heard that Schrodinger tried to revive his cat that way and found
out that it only works nine out of ten times...
(Sorry! I couldn't resist...)
-Joao Leao
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Har
e precisely
how dead you already are!
So there is a branching event for you: if you survive a nuclear
blast, how sure could you be that you really survived?
Laurie Anderson was fond of saying: "What kills you is
not the bullett, its the hole!".
-Joao Leao
Hal Finney wrote:
> Davi
Hal Finney wrote:
> Joao Leao, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes:
> > You are quite right in one point, Hal: "...probably a lot of
> > things!". But you should have written: "Certainly
> > a lot of things, each one with high probability". If you pic
On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote:
Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that
our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially
flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are
Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
I will have to split mine in two installments
if you don't mind.
Ron McFarland wrote:
> Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
> debates!
>
>
> >
> > I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below!
> > You state, quit
Hal,
Waht about a definition of Observer-Moment?
That would surely help me...
Thanks,
-Joao
Hal Finney wrote:
> Jesse Mazer writes:
> > In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your next
> > observer moment?
>
> The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as comp
Ron McFarland wrote:
On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote:
> Part II:
> >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
> > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent
redshift
> > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored
f
Norman Samish wrote:
I've been reading about "spooky action at a distance"
at
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html
and several other
sites.
"Spooky action-at-a-distance" is a catchy but misleading description of
EPR-Bell type quantum correlations because there is no effective
scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
> time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope
of
> the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie
backwards
> and everything looks normal.
Yes, but
scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
The association between non-locality and "retr
Hal Finney wrote:
This list is dedicated to exploring the implications
of the prospect
that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes
exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes
exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch
is rea
scerir wrote:
Joao Leao:
> The association between non-locality and "retrocausality"
> (for lack of a better word) is anything but simple! In any
> case it has less to do with the flow of time than with its
> negation! [...]
Bell's theorem shows that, given the hidden
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
Non-separateness and identity are not the same thing!
Your argument
against dualism assumes that the duals are somehow separable and
non-mutually dependent and thus lacking a linking mechanism dualism
fails as
a viable theory. On the other hand, once we
le
Category of Automorphisms, and not Existence in-itself.
My words are ill-posed here, I apologize. Kindest
regards, Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Joao
Leao
To: Stephen
Paul King
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; everything-list@eskimo.com
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 20,
Joao Leao wrote:
Dear Stephen,
I agree with you that the Forms "do not represent themselves to us"
and they remain independent of our chosen
representation --- if I understand you correctly --- that is, on how
we make our way back to them. But the latter
surely depends on sharp
-time such as the work of
Smolin,Rovelli, Barbour and such...
These follow Leibnitz in proposing that Space
(and time) are not things but objective relations
between material objects.
I find these interesting but anti-platonic.
-Joao
scerir wrote:
From: "Joao Leao"
> Our access to
49 matches
Mail list logo
