Le 13-juil.-07, à 20:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>
>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>>> ...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interestin
Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete
>> description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a
>> number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To get to the
>> current view of our universe
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>> ...
>>> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
>>> thing is to discover the specific rules that span
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Brent Meeker skrev:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
>>> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
>
Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> ...
>> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
>> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
>
>
>
>
> Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" c
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>> I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules. Just
>> as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
>> the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the
>> GoL-rules...
>>
> What are yo
> I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules. Just
> as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
> the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the
> GoL-rules...
>
> --
> Torgny Tholerus
What are your "proof
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David sai
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>>> David Nyman skrev:
>>>
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting
and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment o
On 10/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I am not bored
I'm glad to hear you're not a zombie after all :)
> If I look at our universe from the outside
I'd like to know how you perform this feat.
> I see that I will do something
> tomorrow
I don't doubt it. But this is
David Nyman skrev:
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always
static.
Then you must get very bored ;)
David
But I am not bored, because I don't know what will happen tomorrow. If
I lo
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always
> static.
Then you must get very bored ;)
David
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Reposted because of some techical problems...)
On Jul 7, 2:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>
> > David Nyman skrev:
> >> You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
> >> important IMO. This concerns
On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Because
> > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
> > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
> > B-Universe
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.
> But we can look at the objects in an other universe.
I would say that the conjunction of the above two sentences is a contradiction.
> Because
> everything th
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. The relation 1
David Nyman skrev:
> Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects.
>
It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe. One object
in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe.
But we can look at the objects in an other universe. Just in the same
way th
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
> interesting. But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
> with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the
> same way.
I still disagree, but
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
> David Nyman skrev:
>> You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
>> important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
> 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes.
> Even
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TT: All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.
DN: But here at the heart of your argume
David Nyman skrev:
> You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
> important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes.
Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observe
On 04/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TT: You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the
"gliders" move. If you look at "Conway's game of Life" in Wikipedia, you
can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner. This is
possible although
You're doing a giant step for considering current GoL as an
universe... but anyway you can, but it's not because you see one
glider in your tiny framed GoL that the interaction of billions of
cells does not generate a consciousness inside the GoL universe and
you as an "external" observer couldn't
David Nyman skrev:
On 04/07/07, Stathis
Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes
A
and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.
DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate
sleight of imagin
Your example suppose many things which are not granted to be possible:
1- The one who compare them is in neither of them... What is comparing
these universes ? a conscious being ?
2- The fact that they are identical implies that both have
consciousness. If one really lacked it then they would be n
Jason skrev:
> Note that you did not say "thought" was non-existent in B-universe, I
> think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection
> of a large number of simultaneous thoughts.
I had the intention to include "thoughts", but I was unsure about how to
spell that word (wher
On Jul 3, 10:07 am, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as
> the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second
> Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.)
>
> This B-Universe looks exactly the
On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A
and B side by side, interviewing their occupants.
DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight of
imagination where the thought experim
On 04/07/07, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TT: This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe.
>
> DN: IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here. No universe
> can "look" like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an
> 'observer' who is an embedd
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as
> the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second
> Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.)
>
> This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a
>
On 03/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TT: This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe.
DN: IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here. No universe
can "look" like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an
'observer' who is an embedded sub
Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as
the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second
Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.)
This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a
hydrogen atom in A-Universe, ther
34 matches
Mail list logo
