t;I think you are imposing a requirement for theory completeness I do
> >not impose myself. After all, my theory is not a "theory of
> >everything", but a theory of "Nothing".
> >
> >You are right, that ultimately, we would like to know how subjective
&
On 10 Sep 2017, at 08:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 10/09/2017 6:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote:
You have to keep in mind that my theory is a model - the bitstrings
are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. They represent the
data
interpre
On 09 Sep 2017, at 23:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/9/2017 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an
observer can only be defined in relation to an ext
On 10/09/2017 6:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote:
You have to keep in mind that my theory is a model - the bitstrings
are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. They represent the data
interpreted by an observer. Something like a universal doveta
On 9/9/2017 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a world to
On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:23, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:48:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is right, but fortunately, a computation, when executed, is not
a pile of states, is more like a precisely structured set of states.
We still cannot found the observer there,
On 09 Sep 2017, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world --
consciousness requires a worl
theory of "Nothing".
You are right, that ultimately, we would like to know how subjective
time arises - whether it is via Barbour's time capsules, or some other
stitching of observer moments, or the natural connection between
machine states during a computation in a computationl
"Nothing".
You are right, that ultimately, we would like to know how subjective
time arises - whether it is via Barbour's time capsules, or some other
stitching of observer moments, or the natural connection between
machine states during a computation in a computationlist account.
How
On 8/09/2017 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness
requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical thin
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:48:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That is right, but fortunately, a computation, when executed, is not
> a pile of states, is more like a precisely structured set of states.
> We still cannot found the observer there, except for some of them,
> but that is not impo
On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer
can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness
requires a world to be conscious of!
Why? That seems magical thinking (in the frame of Digital Mechanism).
You
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 12:05 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:39:07PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I find the discussion in y
On 08 Sep 2017, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/09/2017 11:40 am, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:44:02PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that
On 8/09/2017 11:40 am, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:44:02PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that codings are also entirely
arbitrary, that every
On 8/09/2017 12:05 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:39:07PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I find the discussion in your book rather cursory, unless I have not
locate
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:44:02PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that codings are also entirely
> >>arbitrary, that every possible bitstring will represent the O
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:39:07PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>I find the discussion in your book rather cursory, unless I have not
> >>located the relevant passages -- numbers of p
On 6/09/2017 5:39 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
More importantly, I'm sure you appreciate that codings are also entirely
arbitrary, that every possible bitstring will represent the OM of me
sitting at this keyboard typing to you under some coding. It is o
On 6/09/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:44:12AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I find the discussion in your book rather cursory, unless I have not
located the relevant passages -- numbers of pages or sections to
look at might help.
Time is discussed in S4.3,
Tha
probably all to
> >hard a nut to crack at present, but the latter might just be doable.
> >>I think that if you are to explain QM in terms of observer moments,
> >>you have to give some account of the observer, and what
> >>distinguishes an observer moment fro
just be doable.
I think that if you are to explain QM in terms of observer moments,
you have to give some account of the observer, and what
distinguishes an observer moment from an arbitrary bit string.
But I do - see the discussion of time and projection postulates in the
book, as well as t
I toy with this idea every once in a while. That the observer moments are
generated by an observer, the observer is, for want of a better word, God, and
where did God emerge from? Well, the easiest way for me to imagine this, is to
invoke a Boltzmann Brain as The Observer. Therefore, rather
e may be required, such as considering how Turing machines or
> >neural networks classify things. That remains to be seen.
> >
> >BTW - my goal is not to explain the observer, but to explain
> >appearances in terms of the observer. The former is probably all to
> >hard a nut t
as considering how Turing machines or
neural networks classify things. That remains to be seen.
BTW - my goal is not to explain the observer, but to explain
appearances in terms of the observer. The former is probably all to
hard a nut to crack at present, but the latter might just be doable.
I thi
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:40:01AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When I
> suggested that your idea of an observer interpreting strings was
> dualist, I meant property/function dualism, not Cartesian substance
> dualism. So you want an OM (
On 5/09/2017 8:39 am, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:14:12PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Information is in the constraints. If I know something or other, then
this entails that some bitstrings are compatible with my existence,
and others are not.
But as Bruce pointed out, th
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 03:14:12PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>
> >Information is in the constraints. If I know something or other, then
> >this entails that some bitstrings are compatible with my existence,
> >and others are not.
>
> But as Bruce pointed out, that's a dualist model in which "y
On 9/4/2017 2:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:13:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
The whole point of the the bitstrings is that they are interpreted by
something we call an observer. In the usual Comp Sci setup, there is a
reference universal Turing machine, but when t
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:13:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >The whole point of the the bitstrings is that they are interpreted by
> >something we call an observer. In the usual Comp Sci setup, there is a
> >reference universal Turing machine, but when talking about everything
> >theories, ther
On 9/3/2017 8:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:28:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer
moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:28:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> >I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer
> >moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a
> >finite number of
On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer
moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a
finite number of bits naturally map to vectors in a complex vector
space. There are some lemmas, proofs and
I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer
moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a
finite number of bits naturally map to vectors in a complex vector
space. There are some lemmas, proofs and conjectures (theorems I
haven't managed to prove yet
On 21/07/2017 4:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of this stuff by Zurek. It might be
very relevant.
A good summary by Zurek is given in http://arxiv.org/0707.2832
Bruce
Cheers
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:07:52AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I have been readi
Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of this stuff by Zurek. It might be
very relevant.
Cheers
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:07:52AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> I have been reading up on Zurek's 'existential interpretation of QM.
> This is an interesting attempt to understand unitary QM in an
> e
shing that the sum of two observer
moments is also an observer moment. If OMs are to form a linear
vector space, they have to satisfy some further axioms:
The axioms of associativity and commutativity are fairly easy if you
have additivity, but the existence of a zero vector, 0, such that V
+ 0 = V fo
shing that the sum of two observer
moments is also an observer moment. If OMs are to form a linear
vector space, they have to satisfy some further axioms:
The axioms of associativity and commutativity are fairly easy if you
have additivity, but the existence of a zero vector, 0, such that V
+ 0 = V fo
lush, the complement is unlikely to be an OM, but given the
duality between a set and its complement, we can invoke Leibniz's
indiscernibles principle, and identify a set with its complement.
In any case, I think you have a valid point that a linear combination
of observer moments is not in general
some further
ideas in this regard, but need some dedicated time to think about it.
I have been thinking about it as well. I think your problem is even more
difficult that just establishing that the sum of two observer moments is
also an observer moment. If OMs are to form a linear vector space,
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 3:28 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 21 May 2011, at 19:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/21/2011 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3-OMs are sequenced by
On 21 May 2011, at 19:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/21/2011 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3-OMs are sequenced by the computations they "belongs" too. 1-OM
are structured by the topology on those computations derived from
the application of Theaetetus' theory of knowledge.
What topology is th
On 21 May 2011, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/21/2011 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 May 2011, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Interesti
On 5/21/2011 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3-OMs are sequenced by the computations they "belongs" too. 1-OM are
structured by the topology on those computations derived from the
application of Theaetetus' theory of knowledge.
What topology is that? What's the open set?
Brent
--
You receiv
On 5/21/2011 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 May 2011, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not
n
On 20 May 2011, at 22:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent and Bruno,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb
On 20 May 2011, at 22:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2011 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 19:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Rex,
A very good point! There must be a place for "false memories" in
our modal logics.
Indeed. and G* proves DBf. Lies and falsities abounds in t
On 20 May 2011, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not
necessary for consciousness, then conscio
Hi Brent and Bruno,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul
On 5/20/2011 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 19:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Rex,
A very good point! There must be a place for "false memories" in
our modal logics.
Indeed. and G* proves DBf. Lies and falsities abounds in the mind of
the average Löbian machines.
An
On 5/20/2011 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 May 2011, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not
necessary for consciousness, then consciousness does not require a
persistent structure t
proves BDt -> f. But this concerns the correct machine. All this work
because we cannot know that we are consistent.
Bruno
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message- From: Rex Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of
18, 2011 11:38 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to
remind the consciousness of the "blanche machine", the
consciousnes
r last question is
almost like asking to summarize the whole thing, which I do from times
to times, but I can't do without boring the reader. Take the time to
study the proofs and ask specific question.
best,
Bruno
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message- From: Bruno March
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:50:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>
> Is this the psi of the universe or just of the observer (which
> observer)? How is it unit of experience?
It is closer to the "psi of the universe" concept than anything
else. Here, a "universe" means either a single observer moment,
lated. Otherwise, they're not related. This probably entails that
the set of observers is more likely the powerset of observer moments,
depending on how much bite the anthropic principle has.
Sorry for rabbitting on here... this is getting a bit speculative.
I thought you relied on an MWI
I would
perhaps like to put it this way - if \psi_1 and \psi_2 can be related
by means of a projection operator corresponding to an observable that
a conscious being may possibly make, then there is a consious observer
in the Multiverse for whom those experiences are so
related. Otherwise, they'
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:41 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>> The important point for this argument is that we would have no way of
>> knowing if Last Tuesdayism is true, and this shows that the OM's can be
>> sequenced implicitly from their content.
>
> Only if their content is sufficiently comprehesive.
On 5/19/2011 4:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:35 AM, meekerdb wrote:
It may have started a nanosecond
ago, even though I remember starting to count up from zero and am now
at the number ten. That is, I am at the number ten but it may only be
the last part, the
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:35 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>> It may have started a nanosecond
>> ago, even though I remember starting to count up from zero and am now
>> at the number ten. That is, I am at the number ten but it may only be
>> the last part, the "n" of the ten that I have actually though
and ask ontological
questions. ;-)
Onward,
Stephen
From: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 11:29 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Oh you bet! Chopra and those like
On 5/18/2011 11:29 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Oh you bet! Chopra and those like him have not done us any favors,
but can we truly begrudge people from making a buck of a book that is
a soft version of the ideas we are considering?
I can certainly begrudge a charlatan who charg
v.pdf
Brent
*From:* meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:00 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi
: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:01 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
How beautifully said! This is a rediscovery of ideas that we find in many
mythological systems
Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Rex,
I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as a
horrid heresy by most physicists
You seem to have an uninformed opinion of physicists. The physicists I know
don't consider anything &q
On 5/18/2011 10:30 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the
consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of the virgin
Löbian machin
*From:* Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:11 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 7
On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Rex,
I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as
a horrid heresy by most physicists
You seem to have an uninformed opinion of physicists. The physicists I
know don't consider anything "heresy" because they consider
May 18, 2011 1:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the
consciousness of th
Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:24 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> [SPK]
>> I was trying to be
Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the
consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of the virgin Löbian
machine. Mem
implications, a sort of attempt at
a reductio ad absurdum.
Onward!
Stephen
From: meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Interesting! If we
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the
> consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of the virgin
> Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate conscio
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> [SPK]
>> I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that
>> the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example,
>> I think...
>>
>> I am wonde
ng-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind
the consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of
the virgin Löbian machine. Memo
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the
consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of the virgin Löbian
machine. Memories only dif
On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to
remind the consciousness of the "blanche machine", the
consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only
differentiate consciousness.
borate on this.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:58 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 18 May 2011, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/17/2011 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
sn
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind
the consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of the
virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness.
Are you claiming that every thought includes a m
On 5/18/2011 7:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and
discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some
internal reference, one to another. I don't think
On 18 May 2011, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/17/2011 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 May 2011, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the
possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and
> discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some
> internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory
> since in order to make t
On 5/17/2011 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 May 2011, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility
that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers
your example, I t
On 16 May 2011, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility
that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers
your example, I think...
I am wondering how they are "s
Dear Brent,
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
> On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > [SPK]
> >I was trying to be sure t
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility
that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers
your example, I think...
I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy
of putti
On 16 May 2011, at 16:13, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Stathis,
-Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King
Observer
moments for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a
physically
unreal notion of time, the Newtonian Absolute time which is
disallowed by
the experimentally verified theory of general relativity. I will
concede
that I might be mistaken in my claim that the complex valuation
Hi Stathis,
-Original Message-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
Hi Brent and Everything List Members
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> Hi Brent and Everything List Members,
>
> Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the
> Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer
> moments for multiple intera
Hi Brent and Everything List Members,
Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the
Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer moments
for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a physically unreal
notion of time, the
Bruno writes
> Lee Corbin a écrit :
>
> > Stephen writes
> >
> >> I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
> >> "objective processes" but the result of "objective processes".
> >
> > Of course, I will bow to whatever word usage is favored by most of
> > the people, or by
Le 15-août-05, à 06:02, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Stephen writes
I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
"objective processes" but the result of "objective processes".
Of course, I will bow to whatever word usage is favored by most of
the people, or by those who have
be _your_
> final word but not the natural world's final world.
Well, I *did* say "can be viewed", and in the rest of the sentence
merely stated that I did *not* have an argument with OMs per se. :-)
> The system of observer moments could be just as 'mathematical'
Stephen writes
> I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
> "objective processes" but the result of "objective processes".
Of course, I will bow to whatever word usage is favored by most of
the people, or by those who have the longest experience with the
term. I merely
e kicking against the pricks trying to go backwards?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EverythingList"
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: The Reality of Observer Moments
I wish to emphasize that acco
Lee Corbin
> I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
> beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
> do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
> concerning them.
>
> Suppose that a mouse during some small
I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
concerning them.
Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in
a particular state (or s
pplying the same method to personal identity, we can avoid ambiguity by
describing the mental properties of the person in question at a specific
time: that is, the observer moments. We aknowledge that how the OM's are
arranged to give the first person impression of an individual persisting
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
