Re: Re: subjective reality]

but that doesn't make it nonsense. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the discovery. Norman Samish

Re: subjective reality

Bruno, You speak of "God." Could you define what you, as a logician, mean? Thanks, Norman ~~ An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e asyness comes from

Re: subjective reality

Bruno, I don't know what you mean by this comment. Could you please go into more detail? I realize this is speculation, nevertheless I'd like to know what your speculation is. Thanks, Norman Samish ~~~ - Original Message -

Re: How did it all begin?

This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable Mention? Who is Godfrey? - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "everything" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:14 AM Subject: How did it all begin? http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429 Tegmark

Re: How did it all begin?

to my regret. I don't think that was the reason for the dishonorable mention, though! I surely wasn't heard about it.. As to whom am I? Still trying to find out... Regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) ~~ -Original Message- From: Norman Sam

Re: How did it all begin?

". It follows that it is Eternal, without beginning or end. IMHO, Tegmark's paper, like the rest of his papers, is not worth reading if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform thoughts. Onward! Stephen ~~~~~~ - Original Message -

Re: subjective reality

Hi Saibal, While my simple mind believes that "mathematical existence = physical existence," I do not assume that "we owe our existence to the mere existence of the algorithm, not a machine that executes it." To me, the reason that mathematical existence means physical existence is that

Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

d at faster-than-light or infinite speed, maybe it could, in principle, simulate the universe. However, this isn't possible. Does this mean that the Church Thesis, hence computationalism, is, in reality, false? Norman Samish

Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

niverse. Norman - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "everything" Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:11 AM Subject: Re: What Computationalism is and w

Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

rstand it with less effort.     Norman ~~~- Original Message - From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:39 AMSubject: Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*Norman, I wonder which one do you prefer:The unprovable proof,  or The Hypothetical reality?John M

Re: Let There Be Something

over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM Subject: Re: Let

Re: Let There Be Something

Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be

Re: Lobian Machine

Stathis, Yes, it is frightening, especially since (I think) I am an "engineer, married with adult children, own the house you are living in and the car in the driveway, and so on." That is a vivid description. But even as I am being hauled away to the psychiatric ward, can I not logically cli

Re: Technical paper on 3-dimensional time

I realize that there are unsolved problems in quantum mechanics that can be solved by adding dimensions, whether spatial or time. I also know that added dimensions are describable mathematically, and that some (Tegmark) hold that this makes them real. However, as Jonathan points out with resp

Re: belief, faith, truth

life for many would be intolerable.    If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a zero.  If there is a God, there is an after life and they get infinity.  So how can they lose?  Maybe Pascal's Wager deserves more consideration.   Norman Samish ~~ 

Fw: belief, faith, truth

ity that embraces the irrational.   Even though I don't think that personal gods exist, there are benefits to having faith that they do.  As Kevin Ryan said, there is comfort in submission.   Norman ~~~~~       - Original Message - From: "John M"

Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth

Hi Danny,   Thanks for your interesting comments.  I've responded below. Norman Norman Samish wrote: Hi John,   Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is. >> Actually, with all due respect to John

Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth

  - Original Message - From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AM Subject: Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth Hi Norman, Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman Samish a écrit :>   (NS) I

Re: Belief, faith, truth

Bruno,   Thanks for your response.  I don't understand why you say my argument is not valid.  Granted, much of what you write is unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know little.  Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king.  Here is what we've said so far:   (Norman

Re: Multiverse concepts in string theory

Stephen,   As you say, the version of string theory with an infinity of universes is an elegant concept.  However, when you say ". . . its most fundamental assumption, the existence of a supersymmerty relation between bosons and fermions, has never even come close to matching experimental ob

Why is there something rather than nothing?

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that "nothing" was describable - because, if it was, it would not be "nothing." I don't think of "nothing" as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of a bitstring - as "no thing." Gi

Re: Unprovable Physical Truths and Unwinnable Arguments

Gentlemen:   George Levy's moral is correct.  George's encounter with his wife reminds me of a similar encounter with my wife.   I told her, "Some people feel that there is something rather than nothing because everything can be represented by strings of numbers, and numbers must exist.  Do

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Thanks to all who replied to my question.  This question has bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made towards an answer.   I've heard some interesting concepts, including: (1) "Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must exist." (2) "Something exists because N

Re: Numbers

I don't see how a list of numbers could, by itself, contain any meaningful information. Sure, a list of numbers could be an executable program, but there has to be an executive program to execute the executable program. The multiverse has to therefore consist of more than a matrix of numbers

Re: Numbers

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:"Another note about numbering.  It seems to be that if you repeatedly make descriptions of descriptions, you eventually end up with all 0's or all 1's, showing that numbers describing numbers is meaningless.   Does this also prove that numbers do not have a

Re: Numbers

( Norman Samish)   I don't see how a list of numbers could, by itself, contain any meaningful information.  Sure, a list of numbers could be an executable program, but there has to be an executive program to execute the executable program.  The multiverse has to therefore consist of

Fw: Numbers

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   > "Hal Finney" wrote:> The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem.> When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7.> But they are not really typical of numbers.  Even restricting ourselves to> the integers, the

Re: Fw: Numbers

chine interpreting the tape. I think this is another way of putting the UDA. Cheers On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0800, Norman Samish wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > "Hal Finney" wrote: > > The first is that numbers are really far more complex than t

Re: Numbers

Vic Stenger's site at http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/index.html has much well-presented information and speculation. Thanks for the reference. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You would like this book

Re: Intensionality (was: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE)

as (0.39 x ASL) + (11.8 x ASW) – 15.59 ASL = avg. sentence length, 22.5 in your statement. ASW = avg. no. of syllables per word, 1.72 in your statement. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 200

Re: *THE* PUZZLE (was: ascension, Smullyan, ...)

nd.  Bruno, and probably Russell and a few others, are clearly Homo Superior, while the rest of us are mere Homo Sapiens."   You will then say, "Our discourse is meant for Homo Superior.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."  

Re: Number and function for non-mathematician

aluable time attempting to get blood from a turnip.   Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegrou

Re: A calculus of personal identity

Interesting notion.  I recently read a science fiction story set in the distant future where people could be replicated at will.  In the story, it was not uncommon to meet one's clone.  The clones were treated as separate individuals- perhaps analogous to how identical twins are treated in o

Fermi's Paradox

We can all agree, I think, that many among us humans are irrational. What's more, many are obsessed with killing others who don't agree with them. The Conquistadors who killed the Aztecs and Incas "because God wished it so" and the radical Muslims who kill the infidels "because God wishes it

Re: Fermi's Paradox

Hi Brent,   You say, "They (the Spanish) subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for king and gold.  European disease may have killed a lot of them, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors - though they were certainly revolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the Aztecs."I am r

Re: Theory of Nothing available

;m looking forward to perusing it.   I bought the PDF version from http://www.booksurge.com and they allowed an immediate download.    Thanks and best wishes, Norman Samish I'm pleased to announce that my book "Theory of Nothing" is now for sale through Booksu

If the ">" characters bother you

John, you can download a free little program at http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm that strips all those >>> things from any file you feed it.  If the ">" characters bother you, give it a try. Norman   - Original Message - From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:

Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~

Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

ntum Universe? 4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in "quantum universes" without computational assistance? Norman - Original Message - From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re:

Does Heaven exist?

Hi WC, I look forward to seeing your "math formulas/theorems etc." supporting the Perfect Universe. Your Perfect Universe sounds like the "heaven" that many true believers aspire to. There can apparently be as many Heavens as there are Believers, since each believer is free to define the spe

Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these S.C. is alive; in half it is dead. Norman Samish ~~~` - Original Message -

Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

gain understanding.  I sit at the feet of brilliant thinkers and listen.Norman~~- Original Message - From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything List" Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:06 AMSubject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp>

Can we ever know truth?

I still cannot know that what I experience is reality.  I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong.   Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything

Quantum Weirdness

hanics!  It is constructed of something that behaves quantum mechanically."   Thank you, Colin Hales.  I believe your remarks apply to any theory.  Theories are descriptions of what we think reality may be - they are not reality.   Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~

Re: Quantum Weirdness

 Serafino,     I regret that I am unable to answer your question - perhaps another list member will volunteer his opinion. Norman ~ - Original Message - From: "scerir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:08 PM Su

Re: Are First Person prime?

Brent,   That's an interesting explanation of a zero-information universe, which you suggest is implicit in the MWI of QM - yet (like me) you don't necessarily buy MWI.  In your view, are there other explanations for quantum mysteries that are more credible?   Nor

Re: Quantum Mysteries

Brent:  ". . . It seems to me that an information theoretic analysis should be able to place a lower bound on how small a probability can be and not be zero."   Norman: Doesn't a lower limit on probability repudiate the notion of Tegmark, Vilenkin, et al, that there are necessarily duplicate

Re: computationalism and supervenience

Stathis Papaioannou writes: That's right, but with a fixed input the computer follows a perfectly deterministic course, like a clockwork mechanism, however many times we repeat the run. Moreover, if we consider the recording of the input as hardwired into the computer, it does not interact wit

Re: computationalism and supervenience

Stathis,   According to Wikipedia, "Platonia" is a tree.  That isn't what you mean.  Could you furnish a definition?  Thank you,   Norman Samish ~~~- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   . . . 

Thompson's Lamp

Welcome, I've been looking for an idiot savant to answer this question:   Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp.  This is an ideal lamp, capable of infinite switching speed and using electricity that travels at infinite speed.  At time zero it is on.  After one minute it is turned off.  Af

Is reality unknowable?

"Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp. This is an ideal lamp, capable of infinite switching speed and using electricity that travels at infinite speed. At time zero it is on. After one minute it is turned off. After 1/2 minute it is turned back on. After 1/4 minute it is turned off. And so

Re: a possible paradox

To repeat Tegmark's rhetorical question (and he's probably not the originator), "If the multiverse is finite, what's outside it's edge?" Norman - Original Message - From: "Mirai Shounen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Federico Marulli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, Oc

Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms

I agree with Eric Hawthorne. Much of what's said here is unintelligible to me. I think that most of the contributors to this list are outstanding intellects that want to enlighten, not obfuscate, and have some fascinating ideas. I'd like to be able to decipher what you're saying. Norman - Or

"spooky action at a distance"

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. I'm told that non-locality is a phenomenon that is proven. A review of experiments makes it clear that "spooky action at a distance is part of nature." But

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Does this question have an answer? I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things and is unanswerable. Does anybody disagree? Norman

Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?

Hal Finney, Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing by using Descartes reasoning. (From http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) "The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a th

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Gentlemen, Thanks for the opinions.  You have convinced me that at least the empty set MUST exist, and "The whole of mathematics can, in principle, be derived from the properties of the empty set, Ø."  (From  http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilf01.htm .)    "In the Universe as a whole, the

Re: Strange Anthropic Probabilities

Doug, What you say rings true! Thanks for a breath of fresh air. Norman - Original Message - From: "Doug Porpora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:32 PM Subject: Strange Anthropic Probabilities > Hi all, > > I have a query about Tegmark's arg

Re: Determinism

Doug Porpora, You have some interesting ideas. For example, "a probability so close to zero it takes infinite chances for the event to be expected even once." My understanding of the properties of infinity is that this cannot be true - in an infinite set, anything that can occur, even at the s

Re: Improbable or impossible?

uess the point of this is that once we invoke "infinity" we're into realms that cannot be comprehended, at least not by me. Norman - Original Message - From: "Martin Keitel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Doug

Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

Your conclusion that "there is no scientific justification for morals of any sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense" depends on the definition of "scientific." Without "morals" an argument could be made that mankind would not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is "scientific ju

Re: Occam's Razor now published

"Why Occam's Razor" can be viewed at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/ The abstract: "Ensemble theories have received a lot of interest recently as a means of explaining a lot of the detailed complexity observed in reality by a vastly simpler description ``every possibility exists''

Re: Nothing trivial

Ron McFarland,     Too much of what I read on this list is over my head, but every once in awhile somebody like you has something illuminating to say.  Thanks for an understandable presentation of your views.  I find that they coincide with mine - even that digital mathematics cannot fully d

Math Problem

than on how the probability varies as a function of time. I have not posted this to the list as you only posted your question to me; if you think this reply would be of interest to the list, please feel free to forward it. Stathis Papaioannou >From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PRO

Re: Omega Point theory and time quanta

Perhaps mathematics, which is digital, is incapable of precise simulation of reality, which is not digital. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 9:36 PM Subject:

The FLip Flop Game

In one version of Flip Flop, each of an odd number of players simply flips a coin. The majority result, heads or tails, pays the casino $1 each while the minority result gets paid $2 each. Based on these rules, I worked out Kory's tables for 3, 5, 7 and 9 players. The results show that the play

Re: The FLip Flop Game

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, Norman Samish wrote: > >For example, if there are

Re: Observation selection effects

ing is NOT valid - but I am unable, at the moment, to tell you why! Norman Samish - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:43 PM Subject: RE: Observati

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

Hal, I'm way out of my depth, but if I'm correctly interpreting what you are saying, it looks to me that your multiverse model cannot be valid. This is because it answers the question "Why does anything exist?" with the answer "Because it's not possible to conceive of Nothing, since the concept

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

Hal, With reference to your "inconsistent" TOE model (which I do not claim to understand), you state "My approach solves these issues for ME . . ." You also state "All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self a

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

Hal, You state, "Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by other than the belief of the majority of mathematicians." That's an interesting observation, and it shows that much of what we take as "proven," from math to religion, is something that we accept as true because auth

Re: Belief Statements

lty, as Hal Finney points out, is that we so far do not know what "can happen." Why does infinite space-time exist? Perhaps because it must - what alternative could there be? Norman Samish . - Original Message - From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: John Conway, "Free Will Theorem"

ee variety, which clearly I have no control over?" Norman Samish

Re: "Free Will Theorem"

of a SAO cannot be completely predictable. To be free of complete predictability, at least some of the SAO's actions must ultimately depend on some kind of random event. At the most fundamental level, this must be quantum indeterminacy. Norman Samish ~

Re: "Free Will Theorem"

re were completely predictable then how could there be free will? Everything would be pre-ordained. But, as Heisenberg shows us, the future cannot be predicted. Unpredictable choices are made by SAO's, therefore free will exists. Norman Samish ~

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

You argue that this is incorrect. Can you show why it is incorrect? Thanks, Norman Samish

Re: Implications of MWI

Mark, What does "happening right now" mean in the MWI concept? Einstein showed that there is no universal "right now." Are you confusing this with a saying that I've seen attributed to C. A. Pickover, in his book “Keys to Infinity”? It goes “In infinite time and infinite space, whatever can

Re: Implications of MWI

Jonathan, If it is true that “In infinite time and infinite space, whatever can happen, must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times,” then what does probability mean? In your example below, there must be an infinity of worlds where Colin Powell is president and an infinity of

Everything Physical is based on Consciousness

Gentlemen,I think that we all must be "zombies who behave as if they are conscious," in the sense that a snapshot of any of us could, in principle, be precisely represented by a string of zeroes and ones.If it is true that the multiverse is infinite in space-time, is it not true that anythin

Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness

enough, perhaps it is NOT true that "anything that can exist must exist."  Would this then mean that the multiverse is NOT necessarily infinite in space-time?   Thanks for your comments, Norman Samish ``   - Original Message - Fro

Re: many worlds theory of immortality

If the multiverse is truly infinite in space-time, then all possible universes must eventually appear in it, including an infinite number with all 10^80 particles in it identical to those in our universe. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message

Re: Tipler Weighs In

(Please go to the URL to avoid misinterpretations which I may have introduced by my editing.) Norman Samish - Original Message - From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In Lee Co

WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

or others have opinions on WHY, I'd like to hear them. I wonder if your opinion will be that no opinion is possible? Norman Samish ~` - Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

Hi Jonathan, You say that if "something and nothing are equivalent," then "the big WHY question is rendered meaningless." But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking "WHY does the integer series -100 to +100 exist?" Even though the sum of the integer series is zero, that doesn't render

Fw: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

Hi Jonathan, You say that "Because it is necessarily true" is the answer to "Why does the integer series -100 to +100 exist?" However, you seem to say that this is NOT the answer to "Why does anything exist?" In this latter case, you seem to say the question is meaningless because "the sum of

WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

Le mardi 17 mai 2005 Ã 06:56 -0700, Norman Samish a Ãcrit : > Hi Jonathan, > > You say that "Because it is necessarily true" is the answer to "Why does > the > integer series -100 to +100 exist?" However, you seem to say that this is > NOT the answer

WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

ot an explanation of existence. Obviously, we don't know THE answer - do you (or anybody) think there CAN be an answer that does not require supernatural intervention? What might it be? My wife says the answer is "Because." Norman Samish ~~~

Re: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST

e an explanation for such would be a requirement that there is a necessitate prior to which Existence is dependent upon." Norman Samish ~~ Stephen Paul King writes: Existence, itself, can not be said to require an explanation for such would be a re

Re: objections to QTI

?article_id=183   Norman Samish - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:28 AMSubject: Re: objections to QTIHi Stathis,I think that

Re: objections to QTI

xchange? In other branches of the multiverse, humans did self-destruct (and may do so in this one). 4) In my personal history, there are several "close calls" where I could easily have been killed. In some branches of the multiverse I was, in fact, killed. In this branch I survive.

Re: objections to QTI

human genetic variation stems from this time. No other species shows such a small variation. Genetic evidence suggests only 1,000 adults survived world wide. May be event which caused rise in modern racial differences - Professor Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois." This arti

Re: objections to QTI

for me to ever dream up. Yet if I'm asked to provide answers, these are the only ones I can offer. I think they all qualify as "marvelous circumstances." Norman Samish ~~ (Norman writes) However, the part that I have trouble with is figuring

Re: objections to QTI

m gravity. - Original Message - From: "scerir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:55 PM Subject: Re: objections to QTI Norman Samish wrote: This scenario that you are discussing reminds me of this interview with Julian Barb

Do things constantly get bigger?

Hal, Your phrase ". . . constantly get bigger" reminds me of Mark McCutcheon's "The Final Theory" where he revives a notion that gravity is caused by the expansion of atoms. Norman - Original Message - From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM

Re: objections to QTI

Hal, I agree. It seems clear to me that the urge of nature to increase the entropy of the universe is the engine behind everything we see happening, including life and evolution. Why did life occur? Why, to increase the entropy of the universe! How did life occur? Well, you mix some che

where did the Big Bang come from?

> Norman Samish wrote: >> And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A "quantum >> fluctuation of virtual particles" I'm told. > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote: > Whoever told you that was passing off speculation as fact--in fact ther

Can the arrow of time reverse?

Norman Samish wrote: If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller, which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an argument in support of perpetual expansion. On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote: >From what I've read, if the u

collapsing quantum wave function

Jonathan Colvin wrote: "If I take a loaf of bread, chop it half, put one half in one room and one half in the other, and then ask the question "where is the loaf of bread?", we can likely agree that the question is ill-posed." Depending on definitions, this may indeed be an ill-posed question.

Re: collapsing quantum wave function

ons in the ten traps, and one empty trap. The identity of the empty trap would presumably be unpredictable. Is my guess correct? I don't dispute this, but you are certainly correct when you say "This may sound ridiculous. . ." This vividly demonstrates "quantum w

Re: copy method important?

I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: &q

  1   2   >