On 2 July 2014 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Interesting. How is the energy required to erase a single bit
reducible to statistical
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it.
Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to
On 01 Jul 2014, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, all of fundamental physics posits information theoretic
entities. Particles are nothing more than what satisfies
particle equations. Bruno complains about Aristotle and
primitive matter,
On 6/30/2014 9:35 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter / energy. Information
is an emergent property of the arrangements of those things, like entropy. Neither of
these exist at the level of fundamental particles, or Planck cells, or
On 1 July 2014 17:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:35 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter /
energy. Information is an emergent property of the arrangements of those
things, like entropy. Neither of these exist
On 7/1/2014 1:01 AM, LizR wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:35 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter / energy.
Information is an emergent property of
On 01 Jul 2014, at 06:35, LizR wrote:
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter /
energy. Information is an emergent property of the arrangements of
those things, like entropy. Neither of these exist at the level of
fundamental particles, or Planck cells,
On 01 Jul 2014, at 07:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:35 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter /
energy. Information is an emergent property of the arrangements of
those things, like entropy. Neither of these exist at the level of
On 7/1/2014 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, all of fundamental physics posits information theoretic entities.
Particles are nothing more than what satisfies particle equations. Bruno complains
about Aristotle and primitive matter, but I don't know any physicists who go around
On 2 July 2014 05:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 1:01 AM, LizR wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:35 PM, LizR wrote:
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter /
energy. Information
On 7/1/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 05:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 1:01 AM, LizR wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:35 PM, LizR
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Interesting. How is the energy required to erase a single bit
reducible to statistical mechanics?
Erasing a bit means putting it in a known state, which is a decrease in
entropy.
I don't get
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it.
Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to make
sense,
It's not a causal relationship, it's an explanatory -.
Sorry I should have said
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
What would a non-reductionist ontology look like?
The explanatory chain you gave earlier would look like one if I could make
sense of it.
Some kind of Holism. Plotinus talks about The One, but what good is
that. If you stop taking
On 7/1/2014 9:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Interesting. How is the energy required to erase a single bit reducible
to
statistical mechanics?
Erasing a bit
On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it. Intuitively,
saying
that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to make sense,
It's not a
On 7/1/2014 9:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
What would a non-reductionist ontology look like?
The explanatory chain you gave earlier would look like one if I could make
sense of it.
Some kind of Holism.
On 29 Jun 2014, at 21:20, LizR wrote:
On 29 June 2014 20:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With comp, what i showed is that we have indeed to extract the law
of the qubits (quantum logic) from the laws of the bits (the laws
of Boole, + Boolos). IMO, Everett + decoherence already
ISTM...
In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter / energy.
Information is an emergent property of the arrangements of those things,
like entropy. Neither of these exist at the level of fundamental particles,
or Planck cells, or strings, or whatever else may be the
On 26 Jun 2014, at 03:55, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 03:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 29 May 2014, at 00:17, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 29 June 2014 20:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With comp, what i showed is that we have indeed to extract the law of the
qubits (quantum logic) from the laws of the bits (the laws of Boole, +
Boolos). IMO, Everett + decoherence already shows the road qubits to bits.
But comp
On 28 May 2014, at 04:36, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to
show that
On 29 May 2014, at 00:17, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and
therefore consciousness) can exist
On 26 June 2014 03:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 29 May 2014, at 00:17, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the more crucial step is
On 08 Jun 2014, at 23:42, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 09:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2014, at 05:41, LizR wrote:
Yes comp strikes me as highly controversial, which is why have been
trying to get to grips with it, to decide where I stand. But I have
got stuck at
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:41:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above
one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
But...the truth is no
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:41:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above
one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
But...the truth is no
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 9:13:28 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2014, at 00:08, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at
On 08 Jun 2014, at 00:08, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno
On 08 Jun 2014, at 05:41, LizR wrote:
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that
above one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to
continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks
On 9 June 2014 09:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2014, at 05:41, LizR wrote:
Yes comp strikes me as highly controversial, which is why have been trying
to get to grips with it, to decide where I stand. But I have got stuck at
the MGA and (I think) some Kripkean
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My theory is comp. I just make it
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above
one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not
responding to my responses.
On 5 Jun 2014, at 8:13 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2014 07:49, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the
beginning.
Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
You're a liar. You
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 5 Jun 2014, at 8:13 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2014 07:49, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the
beginning.
Not on purpose. I don't
On 05 Jun 2014, at 11:49, Kim Jones wrote:
On 5 Jun 2014, at 8:13 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2014 07:49, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since
the beginning.
Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure
On 05 Jun 2014, at 15:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
On 5 Jun 2014, at 8:13 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2014 07:49, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
You manage one or the other to avoid my
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en
the amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and
2) yes doctor (and the amount of
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the
amount of logic and
On 5 June 2014 07:49, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the
beginning.
Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification.
Russell Standish read
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:14 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like I was counter-bitching something he threw at me. It's a
problem being custard pied. I notice you don't step in...so you seem
to tacitly support this behaviour toward me.
All tempest in a tea pot. Who cares that I don't
On 02 Jun 2014, at 17:58, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly
central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno
in not responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or
criticisms of something I have
On 03 Jun 2014, at 04:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
There was nothing devious about the Salvia
On 03 Jun 2014, at 05:14, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:46:32PM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:06:07 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Jun 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
Just the same is if we ever found the Anthropic Principle to be
violated (and didn't
On 6/2/2014 7:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:46:32PM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:06:07 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Jun 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
Just the same is if we ever found the Anthropic Principle to be
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jun 2014, at 05:14, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22,
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually
pasted the key lines to the top of the post, and added comments.
Clearly indicating that for
so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly
central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno in not
responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or criticisms of
something I have actually or effectively done.
I constructed a basic
On 02 Jun 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yet it seems to me
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:06:07 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Jun 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the
key
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
There was nothing
On 31 May 2014, at 22:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:17:40PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2014, at 02:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:22 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28
On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yet it seems to me that CantGoTu environments and other non-virtual
reality environments have measure one in the space of environments
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yet it seems to me that CantGoTu environments and other non-virtual
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
I would say that COMP predicts we must be at the base level, and not
in a virtual reality, by virtue of the cardinality difference between
the set of all environments and the set of virtual ones.
What kind of set
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:19:49AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
I would say that COMP predicts we must be at the base level, and not
in a virtual reality, by virtue of the cardinality difference
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:17:40PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2014, at 02:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue
On 31 May 2014, at 08:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:17:40PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2014, at 02:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:07:00AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2014, at 08:45, Russell Standish wrote:
I gather you think it might be possible to distinguish between being
in a virtual reality, and being in the real reality.
David Deutsch introduced the concept of a CantGoTu
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue into a theory of physics. To
On 31 May 2014, at 13:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:07:00AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2014, at 08:45, Russell Standish wrote:
I gather you think it might be possible to distinguish between being
in a virtual reality, and being in the real reality.
David
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:17:40PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2014, at 02:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yet it seems to me that CantGoTu environments and other non-virtual
reality environments have measure one in the space of environments
hosted by the UD, as UD* has the cardinality of the
On 30 May 2014, at 02:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs
to show
No.
2014-05-18 18:47 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 May 2014, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs
to show that either his premises or his argument is
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/27/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a theory of
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/27/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com
gt; wrote:
So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
the scientific sense.
Could you tell me why? I have
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to
show that either his premises or his argument is wrong...
Not exactly. The premise can be wrong, true, or
On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and therefore
consciousness) can exist without physics. That physical
On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:45:50 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:02:37AM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.I don't know about you but I agree
with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it
UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
-Original Message-
From: LizR liz...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable
9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com
gt; wrote:
So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
the scientific sense.
Could you tell me why? I have answered
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
either his premises or his argument is wrong...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
either his premises or his argument is wrong...
I don't agree with you about that, but
On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
either his premises or his argument is
On 5/27/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 14:12, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a
theory of physics. To disprove
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: LizR liz...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com
gt; wrote:
So you
-
From: LizR liz...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com
gt; wrote:
So you do not have
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:02:37AM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.I don't know about you but I agree
with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it
looks.which speaking of killing people.you'd have to kill someone
here to
, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com javascript:
gt; wrote:
So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
the scientific sense.
Could you tell me why? I
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com
gt; wrote:
So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
the scientific sense.
Could you tell me why? I have
On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via
On 20 May 2014, at 20:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2014 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The implications might be the abandon of materialism, which is
good, as it is a person eliminativist position.
Then the machine's theology provides a vaccine against the
reductionist conception of numbers,
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
lt;everything-list@googlegroups.comgt; wrote:
So you do
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2014 4:56 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2014 11:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:13 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:35:47 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM,
On 19 May 2014, at 19:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote:
His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that
problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take
to make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or
disadvantages of
On 19 May 2014, at 20:40, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote:
His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that
On 19 May 2014, at 20:47, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:40:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote:
His
On 19 May 2014, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/19/2014 11:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/19/2014 10:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/19/2014
On 20 May 2014, at 02:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/19/2014 4:56 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/19/2014 11:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On
On 20 May 2014, at 04:35, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:12:20PM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything
List wrote:
Accordingto Deutsch, MWI is falsifiable, with some actions of a
quantum computer. These would be the heavy hitters of QC, and not
the lab toys we have today,
On 5/20/2014 6:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/19/2014 4:56 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
