On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:35:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 16:25, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:53 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM
On 25 Mar 2014, at 07:45, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:35:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 16:25, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
How many different methodologies are used in the course of
producing all those definitions?
If science is
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:53 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC,
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:38:07 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:53:02PM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
Then - the notion of Computation being intrinsically conscious - a
basic
assaumption that I'[d call a major recurrent theme of
On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I am
On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I still remember back maybe in the 1990's, having to keep a sick
bucket nearby, for every tirme some daft comp scientist wheeled
himself out to say consciousness was purely about processing speed.
Remember that one? That was pretty big in
On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure if I have any clue where we would differ, nor if that
has any relevance with the reasoning I suggest, to
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure if I have any clue where we
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:21:58 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:53:02PM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Then - the notion of Computation being intrinsically conscious - a basic
assaumption that I'[d call a major recurrent theme of computionralism over
a pretty long period. A lot o.f your friends have said they buy it.
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:24:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't feel so much cloaked in the Popperian
On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:39:21 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 21:40, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked questions about method. You have not answered them. You
say you have been trying to understand me. I believe
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:24:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:39:21 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 21:40, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked questions about method. You have
On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:24:10 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't feel so much cloaked in the Popperian view. It has been been
refuted by John Case, notably (showing that Popper was
On 14 Mar 2014, at 21:40, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:26:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 14, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 16:18, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:32:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:39:21 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 21:40, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:26:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 14, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 16:18,
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:32:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 16:18, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:32:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On Friday, March 14, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 16:18, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:32:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:26:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 14, 2014 5:21:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 16:18, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:32:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On
:29 -0700
From: gabebod...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:38:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. Me too. But modern physics has a strong mathematical flavor, and
consciousness seems more to be an immaterial
On 12 Mar 2014, at 20:31, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:38:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. Me too. But modern physics has a strong mathematical flavor, and
consciousness seems more to be an immaterial belief or knowledge
than something made of particles, so, if
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:38:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. Me too. But modern physics has a strong mathematical flavor, and
consciousness seems more to be an immaterial belief or knowledge than
something made of particles, so, if interested in the mind body problem,
the
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:38:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:OK. Me too.
But modern physics has a strong mathematical flavor, and consciousness seems
more to be an immaterial belief or knowledge than something made of particles,
so, if interested in the mind
On 10 Mar 2014, at 19:14, David Nyman wrote:
On 10 March 2014 17:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
or to bet on normal higher level of simulation, like with Böstrom
Could you elaborate?
Imagine you embed yourself in a virtual environment hereby. We
might easily fake a reality
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:01, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That relativism argues against comp, and even implicitly against
Church thesis. But my point is not that comp is true, just that with
comp, the theory QM + comp is redundant,
On 10 Mar 2014, at 08:14, LizR wrote:
I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because
the brain (and body) are classical, which almost begs the question
of course, but it means that whatever causes macro-objects to
generally behave classically also applies to the brain.
On 3/9/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 15:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Decoherence is what I described above. It's tracing over the environment
variables,
having selected what counts as environment and what as instrument/observer,
I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because the
brain (and body) are classical, which almost begs the question of course,
but it means that whatever causes macro-objects to generally behave
classically also applies to the brain. (And the senses - if the eyes are
classical,
On 09 Mar 2014, at 00:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).
I can't hardly
On 09 Mar 2014, at 19:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:37:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A couple other accounts of how things might be that I take seriously are
(1) physicalism in the sense that arithmetical propositions might only be
true when physically realized,
No problem, and indeed this would make comp
It's this one http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059v4.pdf which I think is his doctoral
thesis. He later expanded it into a book.
Brent
On 3/10/2014 12:14 AM, LizR wrote:
I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because the brain (and body)
are classical, which almost begs
with Böstrom, or
abandon comp, that is abandon Church thesis, or yes doctor.
Bruno
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06
: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM
On 10 March 2014 17:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
or to bet on normal higher level of simulation, like with Böstrom
Could you elaborate?
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 3/10/2014 8:16 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
The axiomatic of natural numbers is far more simple than anything else. You
can
always propose a much more complex theory to falsify a simple set of axioms.
I don't know that the other cases I've mentioned are more complex. Physicalism
On 10 Mar 2014, at 16:16, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:37:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A couple other accounts of how things might be that I take
seriously are (1) physicalism in the sense that arithmetical
propositions might only be true when physically
On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That relativism argues against comp, and even implicitly against Church
thesis. But my point is not that comp is true, just that with comp, the
theory QM + comp is redundant, and we have to justify QM (at the least its
Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to read
it?
On 11 March 2014 05:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's this one http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059v4.pdf which I think
is his doctoral thesis. He later expanded it into a book.
Brent
On
Actually I assume it's this...
http://www.amazon.com/Decoherence-Quantum---Classical-Transition-Collection/dp/3642071422/ref=sr_1_2?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1394489389sr=1-2keywords=Maximilian+Schlosshauer
Well I will start with the paper. It maye be beyond my brain (no fluffy
kittens).
On 11 March
On 3/10/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to read it?
Decoherence and The Quantum-to-Classical Transition Springer
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Ta.
On 11 March 2014 14:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/10/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to
read it?
Decoherence and The Quantum-to-Classical Transition Springer
Brent
--
You received this message because
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is,
On 08 Mar 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).
I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.
But we don't know that it exists.
?
I just said:
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb
difficulties
but it can only do that by delivering further difficulties of its own. All your
theories are scientifically irrelevant.
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9
.
--
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14
.
--
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3
On 10 March 2014 14:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/9/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism that
causes the collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it being gravitational) and
therefore predicts that at some point that
On 3/9/2014 6:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 14:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/9/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism that
causes the
collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it
On 10 March 2014 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So exactly how has MWI dealt with this? Everett just sort of said it has
to be that way, i.e. humans are like measuring instruments and so they make
measurements which diagonalize their reduced density matrix (but not the
whole
For some reason google decided to post that last post just as I was about
to remove iirc.from in front of recall.
I'm sure it had good reasons for doing so...
On 10 March 2014 15:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 March 2014 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So exactly how
On 3/9/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So exactly how has MWI dealt with this? Everett just sort of said it has
to be that
way, i.e. humans are like measuring instruments and so they make
measurements
On 3/9/2014 7:01 PM, LizR wrote:
For some reason google decided to post that last post just as I was about to remove
iirc.from in front of recall.
I rely on the kindness of strangers...to correct my typos.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 10 March 2014 15:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Decoherence is what I described above. It's tracing over the environment
variables, having selected what counts as environment and what as
instrument/observer, in order to get the reduced density matrix and then
saying Obviously we
On 07 Mar 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true
On 07 Mar 2014, at 21:06, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:59:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or
invalid, and either sound or unsound. Regarding UDA's soundness:
correct?
No, even Greaves agrees that this would minimize the interests of the
copies.
Bruno
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:40:53 -0800
From: ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I'm
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its
logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible
thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone,
Ghibbsa,
I explain spin entanglement paradox this way:
When the particles are created their spins must already be equal and
opposite orientations due to conservation. But this is true only in the
mini spacetime which is defined by their conservation. That spacetime
fragment is NOT LINKED to
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in arithmetic (like x+0=x,
etc.).
I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.
But we don't know that it exists. ISTM that rejecting the possibility of randomness in
the
On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).
I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.
But we don't know that it
On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in arithmetic
(like
x+0=x, etc.).
I can't hardly
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:53 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
arithmetic
On 9 March 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
arithmetic (like x+0=x,
You're talking to someone who hasn't placed any currency in
refutation for over twenty years.
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:32:32 +0100
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen
On 07 Mar 2014, at 03:12, chris peck wrote:
Then you omit, like Clark, the simple and obvious fact that if in
H you predict P(M) = 1, then the guy in Moscow will understand that
the prediction was wrong.
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed.
It is not, once you get
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true
randomness?
On 7 March 2014 15:12, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is
the probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes
the idea that there will be only one unique successor of H. The only
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:32:32 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?
I don't object to any step in UDA. It seems internally consistent and
plausible to me. I'm unsure what
On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:32:32 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?
I don't object to any step in UDA. It seems internally
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is
every case of true randomness an
On 3/7/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every
case of true
On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:59:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or invalid, and
either sound or unsound. Regarding UDA's soundness: I have no problem
saying Yes Doctor.
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said If you repeated the cloning
experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each
time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones
you'd written looked
and that assigning
probability 1 to both outcomes is in fact correct?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:40:53 -0800
From: ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:I'm not sure I follow.
Tegmark said
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason
On 8 March 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch
the door, well, both copies, when opeing the doors will have
to assess that they were wrong, as they see only W, xor M.
Bruno
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:21:47 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel
have another look at step 7. see if I can
make head or tails of it the fifth or sixth time aroundLast time
I got stuck at the floating pen.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:05:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Brent, could you
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you
what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're
looking at cases where the
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show
you what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:32:32 +0100
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:On Thursday, March 6, 2014
1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples
-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:33:15 +
Hi Bruno
Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two
On 3/6/2014 6:12 PM, chris peck wrote:
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is the
probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes the idea that
there will be only one unique successor of H. The only question that is really fitting
in
--
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:21:47 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every
case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there
a person would have of finding room assignment
random at all. There would be increasingly few people willing to bet 50/50
on a particular room assignment.
--
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:13:23 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: liz...@gmail.com
On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you
what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're
looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.
binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
? Given that you know outcomes are generated by a
mechanical process and given you know exactly what the following set of
outcomes will be, how can they seem random? Even 100010110011 isn't looking
very random anymore.
:(
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:21:47 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Brent, could you please reply to Edgar? He is, I'm sure, eagerly awaiting
your response so he can unleash a torrent of carefully thought out
arguments which will cover every point you've made. (As indeed am I.)
On 1 March 2014 13:46, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Are you
still P(1) for both.
I'll tell you what, I'll have another look at step 7. see if I can make head or
tails of it the fifth or sixth time aroundLast time I got stuck at the
floating pen.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:05:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
+1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: liz...@gmail.com
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hello, dear, looking for a bit of multi-sense realism?
On 2 March 2014 16:35, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
heh heh heh I love this place. It's like walking through an
eccentric street market where
On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:18, chris peck wrote:
So has Tegmark convinced me that in his thought experiment I would
assign 50/50 probability of seeing one or the other room each
iteration? Not really.
The question is: can you refute this. And for the UDA, you don't need
the 50%. You need
for that.
--
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:43:29 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said, but using
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
