A consensus?!? Here???
Excuse me while I ROFLMAO, at least metaphorically.
*I'm *gonna read the damn thing, ha ha, to quote a very old review by John
Clute of a James Blish novel.
Well, at least, I'm going to give it a go. I like Mad Max's mojo for some
reason. They laughed at Bozo the clown,
Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense than
some posts around here!)
On 1 February 2014 08:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jOYKKp02FSU/Uuv8Dx3eOmI/AdU/bjA76WPypzU/s1600/robotwiz3.jpg
--
You received
On 1 February 2014 01:33, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It isn't *essential.
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no
program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output?
The UD.
Isn't everything output from the UD?
No, as I understand it, only
On 1 February 2014 01:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Why do some people have such a
On 1 February 2014 02:08, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Why is this a problem? How can you know for sure that there is a flow
of time? Block universe hypothesis can explain how time would appear
to flow for each observer. This doesn't prove that block universe
hypothesis are
On 1 February 2014 02:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Again, the best way I can say it is that your mouth has to move plenty to
tell me it isn't moving!
Patronising, boring, insulting and totally failing to understand
elementary physics.
--
You received this message because you
On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own
instantiation through input. It begins assuming that code is running. It
begins with the assumption that coding methods exist. I am saying that
those methods
On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is
On 1 February 2014 06:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of
matter
On 1 February 2014 17:37, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :)
Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but
not quite. Both
On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can operate in a
block universe. All the phenomena we experience can occur in a block
universe, otherwise
On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is
computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely
overlooked in the ontology of computationalism. Given that, isn't it more
likely
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like change
can't happen in a block universe (which are obviously nonsense, or
Einstein et
I will answer that if / when I have read it.
On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
has the most members in it.
For another try I have read the following:
arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
On 2 February 2014 04:44, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a
space-time continuum such that a god's eye view (or the relevant
equations) would see
The saga continues...
[image: Inline images 1]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical
objection then you don't understand my theory fully.
That is truly hilarious Craig! I
For a trip of interstellar distance, the time dilation caused by getting
into low earth orbit will be insignificant. Alice and Bob can compare their
watches when Alice is in orbit, and see that they are still synchronised to
high accuracy, at least as far as humans are concerned - there might be a
Someone asked how a block universe comes to exist and if it comes into
existence all at once, or a bit at a time (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it
was. But I haven't managed to find it, and I can't spend all night trawling
the forum
...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 2 February 2014 03:42, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
To answer the question about the frogs. We imagine we are an extended
frog because of memory; without it we really would be stuck in the present
moment, a series of individual isolated moments - and completely
On 3 February 2014 03:29, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 2 February 2014 05:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Phew. At least it isn't just me who has this reaction. Maybe Craig and
Edgar can get together and form a church whose motto is I am right, and if
you don't realise
On 3 February 2014 00:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Telmo,
No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually
OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons
On 3 February 2014 02:37, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Chalmers knows he has put his finger on a stark contradiction - a paradox
in fact - and he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge its force.
He shows that it should lead us to the conclusion - per impossibile - that
we
On 3 February 2014 08:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. The only thing lagging is the AI.
More or less, but AI is a bit relative. I agree with Hofstadter AI
is when the program are not yet written, and once written we take them
On 3 February 2014 08:48, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Your idea of my theory must be very different from mine.
You appear to have Edgar-itis - I have a theory which I can't explain
clearly, nor can I defend it against criticism except by insisting that
nobody understands it.
On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it
as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of
On 3 February 2014 08:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe comes to exist and if it comes into
existence all at once, or a bit at a time (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make
Ooh, tricky - could that be Brent Meeker or Bruno Marchal being quoted? (I
have my suspicions of course... :-)
BM: But mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that the
machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth.
--
You received this message because
.
Jason
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 January 2014 12:49, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
It looks like I need to update the database connection
information:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
If others
One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.
There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.
To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might
appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least
tangentially, and in a fictional manner).
I might
Yes, it's in response to that. It just struck me that although the original
couldn't get out on his own, the duplicates he created could still help him
escape.
On 3 February 2014 20:33, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Once
Oh, and I should of course mention The Pirates! Band of Misfits from
Aardman (makers of Wallace and Gromit) which is the source of my new
avatar.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On 4 February 2014 06:19, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you troll as a hobby or professionally?
Oh I think you could call me a professional by now, in fact because I've
been making many of these exact
On 4 February 2014 09:29, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
A couple of points in response.
Yes, I agree that both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than
their own DURING the trip. This is standard relativity theory mostly
Lorentz transform if we just take
On 4 February 2014 11:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a
great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better
idea.
Good, that was the point. A lot of people seemed to be attacking it on the
basis of straw
That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
with everybody's
memories!*
--
Here is a review...
http://www.graemesfantasybookreview.com/2010/07/flux-michael-moorcockbarrington-bayley_07.html
On 4 February 2014 12:12, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 2 February 2014 18:53, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I will come
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 core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an
implication of
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both
imply the existence of a block universe.
I've
On 4 February 2014 12:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 3:12 PM, LizR wrote:
That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it?
Uh Oh! Now you've defined reality as finite. Bruno may make your
possible stay after modal school necessary. :-)
Well that may
On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something
extra and optional. If you could see that it was logically entailed by
certain physical
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 experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics
Oh dear, you really don't have a clue, do you? OK, that's it. I foolishly
replied to one or two of your posts in the hope you'd magically grown up,
but I can't be bothered with this level of willful ignorance and infantile
nonsense. I'll let you get on with scoring imaginary points, and stick with
On 4 February 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 4:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 23:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's hard to say. I think conscious thought will be found to a class of
thoughts and there will be degrees of
Oh yes, many other things as well as scary.
I would add to my recommendations the TV play The Giftie by the way,
which I should have thought of earlier!
On 4 February 2014 14:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke
I pressed the wrong button ... meant to add this to my last post
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086852/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5
On 4 February 2014 14:46, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yes, many other things as well as scary.
I would add to my recommendations the TV play The Giftie by the way
By the way, I just came across this rather amusing illustration of how SR
leads to block space-time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_argument
[image: Inline images 1]
On 4 February 2014 16:34, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen
On 4 February 2014 16:56, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would
block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while
their time is being actively blocked in? Or does blocktime exist statically
as the end-to-end
On 4 February 2014 17:06, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:29:11 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for
On 4 February 2014 17:11, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
It
On 4 February 2014 17:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz - I was just thinking. If Newton's world predicted a variant of
blocktime. What is that saying, given Newton's world wasn't correct? Or was
it based some aspect that is correct?
Well it clearly doesn't disprove that space and time form
As Brent says we have to bear in mind that SR is a model of reality. The
ontological status of its components is another question, as it is with
every theory. Most physicists have assumed that either space-time really
*is* a 4D manifold (Max Tegmark for instance), or it's something else that
is
, but the recently reimagined
Battlestar Galactica probes many of the questions of machine vs. human
consciousness. I recommend it to Craig.
Jason
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.
There is also The Prestige
Oops Inception (told you I don't even have time to check my typing :)
On 4 February 2014 20:33, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
My son (15) has been trying to get us to watch Incaption for a while. Once
we get time...
On 4 February 2014 20:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the information in the *multiverse* is
proportional to the volume of the Hubble sphere?
(Although I guess the multiverse
On 4 February 2014 23:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:55, LizR 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
On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Because silicon happens
That would explain the blue screen of death ! :-)
Sorry.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
where a photon is emitted and absorbed within an EPR
experiment.
On 5 February 2014 09:54, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR
On 5 February 2014 10:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/31/2014 11:05 PM, LizR wrote:
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
concept, they invariably go for straw men
On 5 February 2014 10:58, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing exotic about the state
On 5 February 2014 00:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:40:59AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA,
which is the same thesis, but no more using
On 4 February 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something
extra and optional. If you could see that it was logically entailed by
certain physical phenomena or
On 4 February 2014 23:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:25, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea
On 5 February 2014 06:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary
aspect of intelligence,
OK.
and that is functionally observable.
It is not. Leibniz already understood this.
On 5 February 2014 03:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I love that Lerner guy. It looks like he really cares. He thinks
science is bombing, and he's doing his duty as he sees it, to try to save
it. He's clearly insane...but could he be expected to know that.
Not unless he really is a
On 5 February 2014 12:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
You said we don't need a coordinate system at all, we can just use
4-momenta and 4-intervals - so using those doesn't imply or define a 4D
coordinate system?
Sure they imply that a 4D
Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that
describes it.
It looks like a photon has to make the journey, or am I misunderstanding?
(Or isn't a photon matter?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
that are in use
all over the world.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that
describes it.
It looks like a photon has to make the journey, or am I misunderstanding?
(Or isn't a photon matter
On 5 February 2014 06:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:49 PM, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble
sphere, could it be that the information
On 5 February 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote:
..
Well, we don't know if *anything* is really real. I wasn't intending to
discuss metaphysics on this thread; if you want to do that, maybe you could
start another one. All I'm arguing
On 5 February 2014 13:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's the easiest way to think about SR. And it works for GR too so long
as you avoid closed time-like loops. But GR and QM seem to be
inconsistent, so it's hard to say either one is a good candidate for what's
real. I just
On 5 February 2014 13:31, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm presuming you don't mean blocktime directly predicts...but relativity.
If so, I take your point obviously.
If you meant blocktime directly, I'd love to hear the prediction.
I meant relativity, but that *is *based around the concept of
On 5 February 2014 14:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Of course, you realise there must have been a bunch of entangled
particles at both ends of the teleport link prepared ahead of time,
which does involve matter transport!
I thought that's what the photons were for!
On 5 February 2014 14:45, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the
Hubble
sphere, could
Moon is great!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Well there are cats, alive and dead... (not to mention Wigner, in a state
of having seen the aforementioned cat alive / dead...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
I don't know about a summary, but the whole book is available here:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf
On 5 February 2014 17:58, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:45:18 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR
Wow! Those are incredible! Very Platonic ...! (I assume they're genuine
and not photoshopped).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and seems
to me to still look like using ad hoc information to select one reality
against others. I agree with Deutsch's idea that Cramer transactional
theory is
2 Maxes? Hmm. Can't be bad. Maybe he has an evil twin!
(or maybe this is an unexpected result of that quantum suicide experiment
he talked about a few years back...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
Calculus must be one of the maths things at play in NM, surely?
Otherwise it's all probably rather complex for me... :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:25:00 +0100
On 04 Feb 2014, at 08:33, LizR wrote:
My son (15) has been trying to get us to watch Incaption for a while. Once
we get time...
After the prestige, that was rather disappointing
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
You have it exactly backwards, Edgar. I am the one arguing that there is
no definitive way to decide whether block time or presentism is correct,
you are the one trying to present various proofs that presentism *must*
be the
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is, you aren't just saying that you personally choose to
interpret the fact that the magnitude of the 4-velocity vector is always
equal to c in terms of everything moving through spacetime is c, you're
saying that
On 6 February 2014 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
But where Edgar went wrong was to suggest that this implies that all
points along a path traced out an object moving through space time
Objects don't move through space-time, only through space :-)
This is one of
On 6 February 2014 11:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:05:22AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
But where Edgar went wrong was to suggest that this implies that all
points along
On 6 February 2014 11:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote:
I have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a problem
with all theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
And God hates Mars...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA17932
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 6 February 2014 12:06, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
This is just outrageously wrong. Block time implies the most magical
mystical miraculous creation event of all times, of the entire universe
from
On 6 February 2014 12:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:05:54PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Now that both Liz and I have corrected your misunderstanding of block
time
What was my misunderstanding of block time (more usually known as
On 6 February 2014 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
That is exactly why I say a BU can never describe consciousness.
Is that specifically a BU, or any form of materialism?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 6 February 2014 13:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
--question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time
simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D
spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such
On 6 February 2014 14:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I don't know. I suspect Liz was being a little overeager in
attributing 1p phenomena to the explanatory reach of the block
universe, but it could be she's a closet eliminative materialist, in
which case, yes, we have a
On 6 February 2014 14:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:19:20PM +1300, LizR wrote:
My position is that (since today has an R in it) I accept there is a
problem with consciousness supervening on matter, and hence no
materialist
(physicalist
This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere,
or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic
memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from).
On 6 February 2014
discourses)
A - ~[]A (related to Gödel)
[]([]A - A) - []A (related to Löb)
[]([](p - []p) - p) - p (related to Grzegorczyk, the Grz of S4Grz).
Bruno
On 29 Jan 2014, at 11:23, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jan 2014, at 01:05, LizR wrote:
On 29 January 2014 08:29, Bruno Marchal
(in
the strong sense of emergence).
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:31 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the
human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being
On 6 February 2014 21:59, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that an argument that is logically sound trumps any
aesthetic objections to its conclusion.
Naah, I don't like the sound of that.
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 7 February 2014 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:30, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and
seems to me to still look like using ad hoc
1 - 100 of 3979 matches
Mail list logo