- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: Saibal Mitra
Subject: Re: objections to QTI
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:24:56 +0200
Le 01-juin-05, à 15:00, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
Hi Norman,
I entirely agree with Julian Barbour. A fundamental notion of
time would act
"No tortue".
Now, sit and contemplate if you felt a difference when, after reading message after message with the opposite words in it, and then suddenly you see "No tortue".
--
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
No. For me, it explained a number things that I had questions about. Learning that there seemed to be a scientific reason for what was going on changed my worldview. It added order to what was beginning to look rather chaotic.- Original Message - From: "Mark Fancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
't had any effect on my worldview at all.
"Go 'W'"- Original Message -From: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Implications of MWIDate: Sun, 01 May 2005 18:15:38 -0500No. For me, it explained a number things that I had que
- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 22:40:46 +1000 snip I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the relationship between observer moments. It is
Dear Stathis:- Original Message -From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortalityDate: Mon, 09 May 2005 23:02:18 +1000 Dear aet.radal ssg, I think you missed my point a
Dear Jeanne:
Message - From: "Jeanne Houston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:19:01 -0400
I didn't read the article but I am aware of the conceptual basis for this
ith compassion. --Stathis Papaioannou From: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:41:27 -0500
--
___Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Why am I not surprised that I disagree with this response?- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:25:28 +1000 The obvious and sensible-sounding
Dear Saibal:
Could you explain the paradox you've created by saying, "In the film Nash was closelyacquainted to persons that *didn't realy exist*." and "One could argue that the persons that Nash was seeing in fact did exist *(inour universe)*, precisely because Nash's brain was simulating them."
From: "Jesse Mazer"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:48:17 -0400 Generally, unasked-for attempts at armchair psychology to explain the motivations of another poster on an internet
Without getting into a long hurrang, I think that Tegmark is correct, at least
in part. Briefly, there has to be a reason why these alternate worlds exist.
I'm referring to the Everett-Wheeler hypothesis and not just wishful thinking.
Granted, if I remember correctly, Tegmark does deal with the
I'd rather be reading quantum physics, but...
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Challenging the Basic Assumptions
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:53:34 -0700
aet writes
Jesse [writes] but hey, this list is all about rambling speculations
I would agree with Russell, here. That's what I meant when I said that I didn't
like Tegmark's mathematical model but I could tolerate it. In the end, it gives
me what I need in that it supports parallel universes and doesn't threaten E/W,
etc. At the same time, I don't have a dog in every
Forgiveness for any typos. I'm in a hurry here. I was going to reply to Miller's message directly, but I see where I can kill two birds with one stone:- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Sociological approach Date: Mon,
I think I can answer to the whole message by saying "no way" isn't always "the way". The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory was wrong because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect proved that EPR actually worked as advertised, however it does so without violating
22:02:48 - -Original Message- From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:40 PM To: Patrick Leahy Cc: aet.radal ssg; EverythingList; Giu1i0 Pri5c0 Subject: Re: Sociological approach ... More to the point, if you happen to know why the mere act of
s evaluation of a website thatreports on the work of some very good physicist, e.g. Zeh, Joos, Kim, and Tegmark. Do you have any substantive comment? Did you read any of the papers?
Brent Meeker
-Original Message-From: aet.radal ssg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005
- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:36:51 -0400 "aet.radal ssg" wrote:From: "Jesse Mazer" To
You're welcome, Lee.
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Plaga
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:04:19 -0700
I could not find who suggested Plaga's paper recently, but
thanks to whoever it was. Whether Plaga is right or wrong,
his
ROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400 aet.radal ssg wrote:Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed ide
that and the Schroedinger's Cat example.- Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:02:19 +0200 The original posting about this dates back from the
HTML-only.
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 08:45:34AM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote:
HEY! BRUNO - I, (aet) didn't say that. Someone else did. I was
quoting them. If you're going to quote somebody, I suggest you get it
right.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: aet.radal
or you Trekkies), making the person real even to the third person perspective."
Funny you should mention that - that's part of what I'm working on, 1930s style, of course.----- Original Message -From: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL
Forgive any typos...
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:49 -0400
aet.radal ssg wrote:
You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through
Excuse me, has anyone seen a ball around here? It's got an infinity symbol on it. Oh, here itis. OK, just playing through...Fore! Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Date: Fri,
26 matches
Mail list logo
