Hi Stephen,
My point is that time as a pointer that points to what exists and what not
(anymore or yet), cannot exist. You can indeed map the set of all such
pointers to the real line. I agree that relativity is inconsistent with
such an idea of time.
Saibal
> Hi Saibal
>
> Are you defining
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
QTI, the life expectancy of the version of me simulated in that dream
should have been b
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825
I've written up a small article about the idea that you could end up in a
different sector of the multiverse by selective memory erasure. I had
written about that possibility a long time ago on this list, but now I've
made the argument more rigorous.
--~--~---
probability of finding yourself on an Earth were the dinosaurs never lived.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 06:54 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
>
> Nice! I did refer often to the Saibal Mitra backtracki
rement and you don't
know the outcome, the outcome is not fixed (proovided, of course, there is
indeed more than one branch).
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Mallah"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 03:47 AM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
--- On T
of 10^23 particles:
the result of a new measurement is not pre-determined in either case.
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 08:06 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > If we consider
I just send a posting to the FOR list about my article. I did not have the
time to reply to everyone on this list previously. Reading the old
discussion again, I think that it was suggested that the exact quantum
states matter, but they don't. It was only used to illustrate the thought
experiment
07:27 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
>
> Accepting QM without collapse, I am not sure you can dump your memory
> in the environment in any truly irreversible way.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2009, at 15:22, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, I ag
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
order logic, see here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)
>
> Is the universe a computer. Well, if you define 'univer
The listserver was experiencing a lot of "computer pain" recently and
that prevented it from function normally :)
John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
Y
The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious
text there should exist a universe which "best fits" those text.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Believing in Divine De
If it feels bafflement and confusion, then surely it is conscious :)
An AI that takes information from books might experience similar qualia we
can experience. The AI will be programmed to do certain tasks and it must
thus have a notion of what it is doing is ok., not ok, or completely wrong.
If
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different
persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
"observer moment" of me.
As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe take
universe described by the
Standard Model.
citeren Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
>> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Diffe
The best thing you could do is to freeze your brain. I think that will
preserve the connections between the neurons, although the cells will be
destroyed.
This will make it easier for a future civilization to regenerate you
digitally
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
Citeren nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
> physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
> upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
> material. If the many worlds hypothe
Citeren nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
> physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
> upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
> material. If the many worlds hypothe
large brain the size of the galaxy would still be "me".
:)
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 03:24 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
>
> O
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is just
an even
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
> More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum
> mechanistic view of the physical world. If you
> don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno.
> Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant
> to be.
There aren't man
gt; That much I will grant you...
>
> (Now I have met 't Hooft! 't Hooft was a neighbor of mine and I tell
> you: Bruno is no 't Hooft! ;- )
>
> Best regards
>
> Godfrey Kurtz
> (New Brunswick, NJ)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra &l
ge
> theories in his youth I suspect "god's dice" are loaded against him
> this time.
>
> However he is always fascinating to read and hear. I saw him at Harvard
> this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous
> animations...
>
> Godfrey
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
How did it all begin?
Authors: Max Tegmark
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did i
Hi Norman,
I have no idea why it received a dishonorable mention. It could be because
some physicists/cosmologists don't like anthropic reasoning.
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
I agree, but Tegmark does mention the idea that mathematical existence =
physical existence, which is basically the same thing (the universe
considered as a purely mathematical entity is ''eternal'').
The point is that the Universe appears to have a beginning from the point of
view of observers...
Hi Godfrey,
It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality etc.
here. Ignoring the exact details of what Bruno (and others) are doing, it
all all boils down to this:
Does there exists an algorithm that when run on some computer would generate
an observer who would subject
t; (arXiv:astro-ph/0302131 v1 7 Feb 2003)
>
> Norman
> ~~
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday,
Hi Norman,
A TM in our universe can simulate you living in a virtual universe. If your
universe is described by the same laws of physics as ours, then most
physicists believe that the TM would have to work in a nonlocal way from
your perspective.
Is this a problem? I don't think so, because the T
h the rest of the (real) universe this
doesn't qualify as a ''bona fide'' simulation.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Hi Norman,
> At last, I may be getting a glimmering of understanding of your point of
> view (which doesn't mean that I agree with you). Thanks for your
patience.
>
> You seem to be saying that it is irrelevant if a Turing Machine, even one
> that operates at the speed of light, takes a billion
This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which are completely different from photons).
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent:
ubject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> > As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino
> > is a tardyon.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
> >
> > At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
> > >I think the beta decay model is wr
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are very
stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent:
Since we are discussing neutrinos, I thought it is fun to mention antropic
constraints on neutrino masses derived by Tegmark, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304536
Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT), Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts), Levon Pogosian
(Tufts)
C
Hal gives the correct explanation of what's going on. In general, all you
have to do to analyze the problem is to consider all contributions to a
particular state and add up the amplitudes. The absolute value squared of
the amplitude gives the probability, which may or may not contain an
interfere
Well, as you can see here:
http://cabtep5.cnea.gov.ar/particulas/daniel/curri/curreng.html
He isn't very experienced yet. I know of some experienced professors of
have made worse mistakes :)
So, what goes wrong? Well, you don't get an interference pattern at one end
even if you don't detect the
You clearly forgot to read this:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
John Ross:
''General Relativity and String Theory
[0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and gravity
but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, attempting to
explain g
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with Jesse), all that
exists is an ensemble of isolated observer moments. The future, the past,
alternative histories, etc. they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't
see how some states can be more ''real'' than other states. Of course, the
un
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 05:49 AM
Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal wrote:
> > The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
> > Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 07:41 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jonatha
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
>
> Saibal wrote:
> > > > The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
> > > > Jesse), all that exists is an ens
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stathis Papaioannou"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 04:47 P
d the person not been
killed. Then his measure would have doubled. But because he is killed in one
of the two copies of Earth, his measure stays the same. In a quantum suicide
experiment his measure would be reduced by a factor two.
- Original Message -
From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EM
s in quantum branch splitting? It seems to me that in both
> cases the relative measure of everything in the world stays the same, even
> though in absolute terms there is double of everything.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> Saibal Mitra writes:
>
> >Correction, I seem
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 03:06 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > - Original Messag
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/12/2/1
gt; Galaxy, or Universe). It could be argued that your measure relative to the
> rest of the Universe (or that part of it which is duplicated) has now
> decreased. Is your expectation of survival in this case more like the
> original teleportation example, or more like the MWI branching example?
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2006/outline.html
- Original Message -
From: "Johnathan Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > In the multiverse, only other people
tally.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
>
> Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a
Stephen,
Theorists are always a bit ahead and they have
already found ways to save SUSY from negative results from the LHC.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From:
Stephen
Paul King
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:04
PM
Subject:
scientific theory must be highly falsifiable, otherwise
we are just going back to the days of Scholastic debates...
http://clublet.com/why?AngelsOnTheHeadsOfPins
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Stephen Paul King ;
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states to the same final state. The observer in the final state thus
cannot know that information really has been lost.
- Original Mes
TECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 03:22 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
> >is lost? Information loss means that time ev
- Original Message -
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 01:46 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
&g
This thread is still alive! It seems that information can't be erased in
this thread either :)
I think that information can't be erased because of the way time is (or
should be) defined. If you take the observer moment approach to the
multiverse, then you have to define a notion of time. That def
Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
In a BBC documentary about time it was mentioned that Einstein consoled a
friend whose son had died in a tragic accident by saying that relativity
suggests that the past and the future are as real as the present.
Saibal
From:
From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2006, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> > Einstein seems to have believed in ''immorta
There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in terms
of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are
connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the high-level
algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified by
the
its neurons
> only?
> Isn't a person (as anything) part of his ambience - in a wider view: of
> the
> totality, with interction back and forth with all the changes that go on?
> Are you really interested only in the dance of those silly neurons?
>
> John M
> - Orig
I don't understand why you consider the measures of the programs that do the
simulations. The ''real'' measure should be derived from the algorithmic
complexity of the laws of physics that describe how the computers/brains
work. If you know for certain that a computation will be performed in this
.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 08:49 AM
Subject: Re: Teleportation thought experiment and UD+ASSA
>
> "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 09:23 AM
Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
Brent Meeker writes:
> > I think it is one of the most profound things about consciousness > >
that observer moments don't *need*
- Original Message -
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 08:28 AM
Subject: Re: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
> The real problem is not just that it is a philosophical speculation,
> it is that it does not lead to any t
I think I can prove that QTI as intepreted in this list is false, I'll post
the proof in a new thread.
The only version of QTI that makes sense to me is this:
All possible states exist "out there" in the multiverse. The observer
moments are timeless objects so, in a certain sense, QTI is true. Bu
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum
states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or
experiences a person can have, see here for details:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
> &g
be considered.
>
> Cheers
>
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > QTI in
I am now completely convinced that attempts to
witness low probability events or to travel to low measure sectors of the
plenitude are doomed to failure.
The (hidden) assumption behind quantum suicide is
that of continuity of consciousness: If there is only one unlikely outcome that
will p
Computer Science, abstractcs.LG/0201005 From: Paul Vitanyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:44:10 GMT (11kb)
Sharpening Occam's Razor
Authors: Ming Li (Univ.
Waterloo), John Tromp
(CWI), Paul
Vitanyi (CWI and University of Amsterdam)Comments: LaTeX 10
pagesReport-no: CWI Manu
High Energy Physics - Theory, abstracthep-th/0201092 From: Stephen Blaha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:57:12 GMT (634kb)
A Quantum Computer Foundation for the Standard Model and SuperString
Theories
Authors: Stephen
BlahaComments: 78 pages, PDF
We show the Standard Model an
It has been conventional wisdom that the
fundamental laws of physics are not invariant under parity. Now, the
computational complexity of a model that lacks mirror symmetry is
much larger than a similar mirror symmetric
model. It would thus be very strange if Nature is indeed not invariant
n the exact parity model.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Mirror Symmetry
>
>
> Saibal Mitra:
> > ... a so-called mirror world could exist. Nature would th
Hello Bruno,
I did follow a course on Hopf algebras, but that's already some time
ago. I will read the articles you mentioned, should be interesting!
B.t.w. Kreimer has also written some papers with David Broadhurst. He
has done some quite amazing work, see his homepage:
http://physics.open.a
Recently discovered documents detail the steps Nasa
and the Nixon administration would have taken had the Apollo XI astronauts Neil
Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin been unable to return from the moon.
The following is the full text of the unused speech, ominously entitled "In
the event of
A new preprint on the mirror matter hypothesis by R. Foot and
T.L. Loon has appeared. My observation that cratering rates on the Moon
point to the presence of mirror asteroids in our solar system is also
included.
See:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203152
Abstract:
There are a number of v
Robert Foot has written a book on mirror matter. It can be ordered or
downloaded from:
http://www.upublish.com/books/foot.htm
Saibal
Didn't Hilbert say that physics is far too complicated for physicists?
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Juergen Schmidhuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: donderdag 28 maart 2002 18:09
Onderwerp: Re: Optimal Prediction
>
> Bill J
I don't understand this point.
Bill Jefferys wrote:
> Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
> things from a Bayesian POV, as I do.
Saibal Mitra
I have made a homepage for Mirror Matter,
It can be found at http://people.zeelandnet.nl/smitra
It is still under construction, comments welcome.
Saibal Mitra
Nick Bostrom's uses the self-sampling assumption without simultaneously
invoking the self-indicating assumption. That's wrong and leads
straightforward to nonsense.
E.g. the Doomsday argument is a closely related fallacy. This is explained
by Ken Olum:
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology,
- Original Message -
From: Brian Scurfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: RE: Holodeck guy tries to prove 'Bruno theory'
> In this paper Olum defends the self-indicating assumption which says that
> given the fact you exist you
Maybe it isn't working but only seems to be working due to a white
rabbit.
- Origineel Bericht -
Van: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: Maandag, Mei 6, 2002 11:30 am
Onderwerp: Re: test
> At 13:19 -0700 5/05/2002, Wei Dai wrote:
> >This is a test to make sure the Everything Mailin
physics, J. Cardy, Cambridge
University Press
[2] Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, R.J. Baxter, Academic
Press, New York, 1982
[3] Renormalization Group Studies of Vertex Models, Saibal Mitra,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9910031
[4] Determinism and Dissipation in Quantum Gravity, Erice
Hello Bruno:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "everything"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: dinsdag 4 juni 2002 19:50
Onderwerp: Re: JOINING posts
> Hi Saibal,
&g
Hello Joe,
>
> I have difficulty with the concept of many distinct programs, each
> representing an individual conscious entity. My understanding of modern
physics
> is that the concept of an isolated individual is essentially obsolete, in
that
> nothing can be defined without relation to eve
Russell wrote:
>
> I take "consciousness" to be that property essential for the operation
> of the Anthropic Principle. The universe is the way it is because we
> are here observing it as conscious beings.
>
> The first problem this raises is why does the anthropic principle
> work? - one can co
Russell wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > I take "consciousness" to be that property essential for the operation
> > > of the Anthropic Principle. The universe is the way it is because we
> > &g
This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know that.
If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could have
concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to compu
MWI is a fully deterministic theory, but it is not the
only deterministic theory consistent with QM.
I believe that 't Hooft's theory is more natural from the point of view that
universes are programs. It is hard for me to understand how you get
interference between ``nearby´´ universes or progra
Gordon wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know
that.
> > If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could
have
> > concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden
Hello Stephen,
Here are the references to 't Hooft's papers. Ref. 3 is written for
non-specialists, and should be easy to follow.
Greetings,
Saibal
[1] Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084
[2] Determinism in Free Bosons
http://arxiv.org/ab
The very act of predicting what you will choose is equivalent to generating
you virtually and observing what box you will choose. So, when you stand in
front of the two boxes, you don't know if you are in the real world or in
the virtual world. The causal argument is thus invalid.
The only way to
Exp(Pi*Sqrt(n)) PageThis table lists values of Exp(Pi*Sqrt(n)), for
some selected values of n up to 1000. Some of these values are very close to
integers. A prize will be awarded to anyone who can either convincingly
argue that this is coincidence, or who can explain why this is so in terms
Hal Finney wrote: ``Unfortunately it does not seem
likely that an explanation suitable for a college senior is available,
> unless he is willing to educate himself for several months on higher
mathematics.´´
I suspect that Roy Williams Clickery included this condition so that he
always has an e
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204256
Ordinary atom-mirror atom bound states: A new window on the mirror
world
Authors: R. Foot, S.
MitraComments: about 8 pages, couple of changes
Mirror symmetry is a plausible candidate for a fundamental
symmetry of particle interactions which can be exactl
Bruno wrote:
> More seriously I do no more know what exactly is new in that papers
> on the primes.
> Here a message I got from friends. I currently agree, but perhaps I still
miss
> something?
I think that a polynomial time algorithm means that the algorithm's running
time is a polynomial in
L
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the
conclusion of the paper.
Saibal
Wei Dai wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dyson, L., Kleban, M. & Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a
> > cosmological constant. Preprint
: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 23:46
Onderwerp: Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:28:28PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
