some intelligent beings in some other part of the
multiverse may want to simulate or emulate our part of the multiverse is
interesting as well, but is entirely unrelated to the logic of whether the
entire entity is at least in part a simulation as set forth above.
Danny Mayes
--~--~---
where I'm
wrong on all this. Please be kind, I've been away from these sorts of
discussions for quite a while!
Danny Mayes
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
> I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
> gi
of "assumption" Bruno was
mentioning in the last sentence.
John M
----- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-0
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that
would be
I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher
spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3
dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's
really the same as the other dimensions.
So your comment about "3 dimensional tim
"Heh. Bruno, I continue to analyse my current (human) condition to try to
find a way out of this mess (I'm not a happy bloke). Still considering many
possibilities."
Maybe I am misreading you here, but you sound pretty depressed. If so, don't
just wait around hoping for things to get better, ge
t is
much better for discussion. Unfortunately it takes me a long time to
decipher some of these posts, so I have to pick and choose what to
read. I need to give up the practice of law to read all of the great
posts made to the everything list!
Danny Mayes
Russell Standish wrote:
I commiserate with
ng with meaning.
Danny Mayes
John M wrote:
Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the
subject phrase. Does it make sense?
Reality is supposed to be something independent from
our personal manipulations (=1st person
interpretation) and so it has got to be objective,
untouched by our
will last
for trillions of years. Final conclusion? Well, I'll let you do the
math...
Danny Mayes
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 08-janv.-06, à 12:22, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
We can argue about the precise definition of words, but I think a
fundamenta
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
I haven't participated in the list in a while, but I try to keep up
with the discussion here and there as time permits. I personally was
raised a fundamentalist Baptist, but lost most of my interest in that
religion when I was taught
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense
because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and
die..."
Tom
Thats funny stuff. And true!
Danny Mayes
Norman Samish wrote:
Hi John,
Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point
out how ridiculous the concept is
>> Actually, with all due respect to John, I failed to see how
his original message (below) in any way illustrated "how ridiculous"
the concept of heaven is. It may
The easy answer for you, John, is that given an infinite afterlife, an
intelligent being would probably experience everything that it is
possible to experience. Heck, eventually I'd probably even get around
to checking out what life as John M was all about.
Danny Mayes
John M
I doubt Marchal's ideas will be made widely known or popularized in the
foreseeable future. The problem isn't with the name of his theory, or
with any problem with Bruno per se beyond this: There doesn't seem to
be an easily reducible way to summarize the theory in a manner that is
digestible
Bruno,
Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of
the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it
seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides
some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives insight
into
Russell,
Thats a good summary. However, my issue with your conclusion is this:
even if I accept that a "machine" or a "prime mover" is not necessary,
such explanations are still part of the plenitude and therefore part of
reality. So if everything is reducible to math or information, even
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>And then, well, yes, it could. And from Zeta's behavior, a whole "many
>world" interpretation of number theory, through a wavy approach to
>numbers (like Ramanujan's one) would be possible.
>Primes could even plausibly justified some single universe selection
>(if they
nonexistent in
OUR universe. Other planets suitable for life would have life in other
branches of the multiverse, but the quantum selection effects would make the
separate evolution of life in the same brach of the multiverse highly
unlikely.
Danny Mayes
-Original Message-
Fro
I have purchased the book as well in PDF,
and while I also have not had time to read much of it, skimming through it for
an overview I can highly recommend it to anyone who regularly reads the
everything list as it thoroughly covers so many of the topics discussed here.
Congrats Profess
Which
approximates my ideas on the nature of reality and the possible role of
intelligence.
(MARTIN
REES:) This is a really good time to be a cosmologist, because in the last few
years some of the questions we've been addressing for decades have come into
focus. For instance, we can now
number of books and papers on the subject matter.
Given my background, my approach is often more logical and philosophical
than science based.
I look forward to further enlightening discussion!
Danny Mayes
I posted this today on the Fabric of Reality Yahoo Group, but would like
to get responses to it over here as well.
First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality
for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of
universes? However, if you start with the idea
Assuming MWI is correct, and that Tipler's Omega point theory is correct
in that in at least some portion of the multiverse there will exist the
physical capacity for a computer to exist with infinite computing power,
even in the confines of a finite universe, does this then allow for an
etern
ssue of whether any one particular universe is going
to expand forever or collapse pointless?
Danny Mayes
nfinite capacity allow it to
create everything forever (within the range of computability)? I do
not understand the math behind infinite sets well enough to answer
these questions...
Hal Finney wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality
f
pletes- VR creates reality and reality creates VR-
endlessly.
Regarding your point about the "universe" expanding forever, if you
accept MWI, then there must be universes that appear identical to ours
that will ultimately collapse just as predicted in the OP theory.
Correct?
Danny Mayes
Hal
Original Message
Subject:
Re: Observation selection effects
Date:
Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:29:54 -0400
From:
Danny Mayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[EMAIL PRO
Could you explain this last line?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 10:24 13/01/05 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
As for the "failure of induction" if all possible worlds exist, I
prefer to simply bypass the problem.
Mmm... I think you make the same mistake as David Lewis (In the
plurality of worlds,
. So you must expand the time frame out to at least a
"moment," which I'll define as the time for a passing thought. However,
all of this seems nonsense to me. Where is the cuttoff point that you
become a "different" person?
Danny Mayes
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I remember your previous posts on "nothing", and how it decays.
However, this concept requires an intelligence to be present with
"nothing" to cause nothingness to decay, does it not? It is
intelligence and consciousness which defines things and makes relative
compar
.
However, this concept requires an intelligence to be present with
"nothing" to cause nothingness to decay, does it not? It is
intelligence and consciousness which defines things and makes
relative comparisons.
Danny Mayes
Actually no. The meaningful question that the Nothing
elief is that QTI is not the end result of our
consciousness. It's just too strange (and this coming from someone who
accepts some pretty strange beliefs in the name of QM).
Danny Mayes
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think you can apply the same reasoning to show you will be not only
e future, or at the
least of the evolution of states into the more recent past.
Danny Mayes
PS- another book I'm reading, Schrodinger's Rabbits by Colin Bruce,
quotes Penrose as telling Bruce "David [Deutsch] seem to disagree on
every conceivable point." That two individuals so imminent in the
field could disagree so thororoughly on matters seems to make
Laughlin's point.
of the multiverse, including the relevance of the holographic principle
to the MWI. Anyone care to weigh in on the prospects for Bruce's idea?
Danny Mayes
ngle line world that
is really a fully 4D world. That seems to explain the holographic
principle from a MWI perspective.
Danny Mayes
sense to me, but then again I am an attorney
Danny Mayes
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Danny Mayes wrote:
Considered from a MWI perspective, space-time is expanding to fill a
volume not only of spatial dimensions, but of time. We consider time to
move in a &qu
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, danny mayes wrote:
Well, as described in the FOR think of the multiverse as a block, made
up of different stacks of pictures that comprise individual universes as
they move through time. Now try to adjust that to
Russell Standish wrote:
the divisor would be 10^300. Perhaps you meant proportional to length,
but then I do not see why this should be.
>>> Don't know if I directly answered this in my first reply. If
time-area equal an equivalent spatial area, we use length as the
divisor to represent the f
But we
have to divide by time. Particularly, the length of the time plane
because the rest of the time area has been lost to the other
outcomes/universes/stacks (or whatever allows you to conceptualize it
the best). This is speculative (obviously). I'd like to hear some
feedback, as this explains a lot (to me anyway) if the concept is right.
Danny Mayes
essed as area. Or whatever.
I post these remarks only to make listmembers (whom I honor no end) to think
twice before spending their time and braingrease to work into it and -
maybe - getting a Nobel prize (ha ha).
If there is something logical, understandable, followable, in your position,
I
is (the multiverse).
"This is the distinctive core of the quantum concept of time: Other times are just
special cases of other universes" - David Deutsch, FOR, p. 278.
My follow up: Other outcomes/worlds are other universes beyond our world-line
on the time axis.
Danny Mayes
Bruno,
You've probably already addressed this recently, but given the number of
posts and my work load I have not been able to read the much of the list
recently. What does comp make of time? Is it merely some measure of
the relationships among bitstrings in platonia?
Danny
Bruno Marchal wro
aet.radal ssg wrote:
Dear Jeanne:
Message -
From: "Jeanne Houston"
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" ,
[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 t
rested in your TIME hypothesis. Could you refer me to a
source for information, or summarize for me?
Danny Mayes
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:13:33AM -0400, John M wrote:
Russell wrote to Danny:
The Grover algorithm is a form of accessing
s saying - there is no need to even consider what we refer to
as the physical. I wonder if, considering Godel, we are forever doomed
to walk around in circles like this
Danny Mayes
many seem to bend over backwards to say you do not actually have to
have the UTM exist physically
Russel
f), was whether
some future super-civilization may be able to actually tinker with the
laws of phyics, or otherwise influence events in a manner to cause the
universe to collapse (if that is what they desired).
Danny Mayes
Hal Finney wrote:
Lee Corbin points to
Tipler's March 2005 paper &
Spore
--
Danny Mayes
Law Office of W. Daniel Mayes
130 Waterloo St., SW
P.O. Drawer 2650
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 648-6642
(803) 648-4049 fax
877-528-5598 toll free
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the effect that not only must the universe allow for intelligent
observers, specifically us, but that the universe must allow for
intelligent observers to be able to recreate or emulate their existence?
Maybe a stronger version would be to recreate or emulate infinitely. I
am aware of the f
the scientific community and they grow long in the tooth,
realized the reality of their own mortality and have tried to use
their knowledge to build theories to give themselves some hope of an
"afterlife".
Stephen
- Original Message - From: "Russell Standish"
&l
I'll answer your question (at the risk of incurring your wrath): those
people are real in the sense that his brain is devoting processing
power to creating the mental image of the individual, and everything
related to this individual's personality. So even though the person in
his head isn't
50 matches
Mail list logo
