>
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/15/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Craig Weinberg
> Receiver: everything-list
> Ti
On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:16, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The self-reference to phenomenol perception shows up
in the monad for an object, which is always from that
monad's pov.
OK.
In the sense that I can interpret this in purely arithmetical terms.
The convolution operator is just
ime: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves.
http://www.centaur
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a
> slide show.
Hi Roger,
What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' a
On 17 Jan 2013, at 14:49, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
You are right.
But UDA shows that if comp is correct, and QM is correct, then
the second
has to be a mathematical consequence of the first.
Agreed, just as I put it above.
So,
ic experience in the context of a
> tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical
> fiction.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/14/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody All
Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/17/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-17, 06:08:26
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be Two
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
et]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On 16 Jan 2013
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
What do you mean by "quantum mind"?
keep in mind that with comp we cannot assu
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That's because they don't
On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a
slide show.
Hi Roger,
What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' and their rate of
transition?
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are s
ichard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 11:23:57
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 14
o Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> The senses convert the phenomenol space-time "world out there"
I don&#
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "quantum mind"?
>>> keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be
>>> deri
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> That's because they don't consider that matter is inhere
On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
What do you mean by "quantum mind"?
keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has
to be
derived from the "digital seen from inside".
And I am not sure we can choose
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Mar
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently
sensitive.
I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive
2013-01-15, 08:47:49
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,
How can you
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> What do you mean by "quantum mind"?
> keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be
> derived from the "digital seen from inside".
> And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more than
> choosi
On 13 Jan 2013, at 21:13, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
nonphy
On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,
How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal
dimensions?
I don't see why we cannot have pure
Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03
Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Why not ?
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:11:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
> >
> wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> >>> That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently
> sensitive.
>
>
> I do. In my model
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Craig,
>> You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie.
>> However, yo might very well be right.
>> Richard
>
>
> Craig is often right, or well inspired, from the comp
he end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Craig Weinberg
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20
> Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
> Theory
>
>
>
>
> On
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Craig,
You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie.
However, yo might very well be right.
Richard
Craig is often right, or well inspired, from the comp perspective.
But he is not valid when thinking that what he says needs no
e: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves
> are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light
Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like
following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
EM waves are physical an
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
>> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
>> nonphysical.
>> The photon particle and quantum p
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions?
>
>
>
> I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related
On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
nonphysical.
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap
between the physical and the mind i
On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,
How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal
dimensions?
I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily
related to lines and circles), and physical waves, like water wave or
tsunami, or sound
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:34:37 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> Craig,
> You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie.
> However, yo might very well be right.
> Richard
>
Mother nature's son?
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >
>
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11
> Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
>
>
> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
> them along with quantum waves
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> but EM waves
>> are physical (electrons)
However, EM waves collapse to photons, not electrons. And I would put
EM waves on the mental side and photons on the physical side. But
light seems to bridge the boundary.
Richard
--
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves
> are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light
Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the
quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO thi
MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
nonphysical.
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap
between the physic
On 12 Jan 2013, at 12:52, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi everything-list,
I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI.
Here's why:
I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect,
due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves
are physical waves, so that everything is physi
Craig,
You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie.
However, yo might very well be right.
Richard
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime.
>
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime.
How do you know that they don't exist in matter?
> Yet I would classify
> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
> nonphysical.
>
I don't see anythi
EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
nonphysical.
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap
between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger
puts it, a dual asp
Hi Roger,
How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi everything-list,
>
> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI.
> Here's why:
>
> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorr
45 matches
Mail list logo
