Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 28 Nov 2012, at 17:42, meekerdb wrote: On 11/28/2012 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The question though is how does that happen? Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't know why and how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math in physics. With c

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 30 Nov 2012, at 20:08, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Richard, > > > On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 30 Nov 2012, at 16:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Richard, > > > On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Bruno, >> Does any or all forms of energy come from

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 30 Nov 2012, at 16:32, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Richard, On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic? Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to c

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Friday, November 30, 2012 2:08:34 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal >>> wrote: >>> > Richard, >>> >

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal >> wrote: >> > Richard, >> > >> > >> > On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> > >> >> Bruno, >> >> Does an

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal > > > wrote: > > Richard, > > > > > > On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > >> Bruno, > >> Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic? > > > >

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Richard, > > > On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Bruno, >> Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic? > > > > Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to come from > arithmetic if comp is true a

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

Richard, On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic? Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to come from arithmetic if comp is true and my reasoning correct. Bruno On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Br

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 28 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:29:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things interface with logic - how do they know the logic is there, how do

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/28/2012 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The question though is how does that happen? Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't know why and how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math in physics. With comp there is only math (arithmetic) and from this

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

Bruno, Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic? On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2012, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig Weinberg wro

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:29:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things > interface with logic - how do they know the logic is there, how do they > 'obey' it, and through what capaci

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/27/2012 10:52 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The question though is how does that happen? How do tangible things interface with logic - how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, and through what capacity can they express that obedience? It's the other way around. Language w

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 26 Nov 2012, at 17:09, meekerdb wrote: On 11/23/2012 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How does the comparison occur? I will not ask what or who is involved, only how. What means exists to compare and contrast a pair of logics? The logic exists, because, by UDA, when translated in a

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote:

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> >> >> >> How exactly does th

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote: How exactly does the comparison occur? By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from observation (the qu

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/23/2012 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How does the comparison occur? I will not ask what or who is involved, only how. What means exists to compare and contrast a pair of logics? The logic exists, because, by UDA, when translated in arithmetic, makes a relative physical certainty in

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > > > How exactly does the comparison occur? > > > By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from observation (the > quantum logic based on the algebra

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote: How exactly does the comparison occur? By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from observation (the quantum logic based on the algebra of the observable/linear positive operators) and the logic obtained from the arithmetic

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/22/2012 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2012, at 00:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 22 Nov 2012, at 00:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/19/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

clo...@verizon.net] 11/21/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-20, 11:56:31 Subject: Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation O

Re: Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

t; -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-20, 11:56:31 Subject: Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation On 20 Nov 2012, at 03:52, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:23:55PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > Why does a multiverse need an internal view? Especially since our >

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1) Why a universe, given a multiverse. A universe

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > 1) Why a universe, given a multiverse. A universe is the internal (ie > > 1p) view of the multiverse. > > > > Why does a multiverse need an i

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 20 Nov 2012, at 03:52, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > What I am asking is why does the idea of a multiverse help explain why > any > > one universe exists in the first place. > > > > This could be o

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view, especially the part about the compatibility o

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:48:14PM -0600, meekerdb wrote: > On 11/19/2012 4:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >What does this even mean? Anyone else know? > > It means Craig is a wordbot? :-) > > Brent > :) -- Prof

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > What I am asking is why does the idea of a multiverse help explain why any > one universe exists in the first place. > This could be one of two different questions, both of which are evrything-list 101: 1) Why a universe, give

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/19/2012 4:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:12:33PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: I'm postulating infinite regress because the idea that universes are being created and preserved implies an meta-universal support which also must be made of some kind of information-t

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Monday, November 19, 2012 5:41:22 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:12:33PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:37:44 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Craig Weinberg w

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:12:33PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:37:44 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > What I am asking is why would the single multiverse be any less

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:37:44 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > What I am asking is why would the single multiverse be any less > dependent > > upon multiplicity to accomplish its infinities of preserved s

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:16:53PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: > > > >which is the Occam's catastrophe redux I point > >out in my book. > > > >I suspect that as human beings, we rank amongst the simplest of all > >possible observers. > > Do

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > What I am asking is why would the single multiverse be any less dependent > upon multiplicity to accomplish its infinities of preserved separations > than a single universe does? If a universe needs a multiverse to justify >

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:23:14 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be > > thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the > > a

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view, especially the part about the compatibility

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view, especially the part about the compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that t

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view, especially the part about the compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' th

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view, especially the part about the compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then gives rise to an illusion of a single cl

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/18/2012 11:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: To Russell, Maybe you are right but thinking of it backwards That I meant by this is that it is our ability to know that we are conscious that allows us to think about that consciousness is and ask questions like" could other entities be con

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, I agree with this view, especially the part about the compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then gives rise to an illusion of a single class

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

Application of the Occam's razor theorem to Anthropic Selection. See Section 5.1 of my book "Theory of Nothing". Cheers On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 06:59:52PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:01:20 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > > I suspect that as human

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:01:20 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > I suspect that as human beings, we rank amongst the simplest of all > possible observers. > why? Craig > > > > > Prof Russell Standish

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: > Hi Russell, > > I agree with this view, especially the part about the > compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then > gives rise to an illusion of a single classical reality; I just > phrase the concept

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 11/18/2012 4:34 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the argument is simply that in order to make un

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be > thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the > argument is simply that in order to make universes separate, you would need > a whol

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the argument is simply that in order to make universes separate, you would need a whole other information architecture (which would also have to be informati

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On 18 Nov 2012, at 09:19, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01:49PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: In a recent paper entitled “Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation”: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447 Jan-Markus Schwindt has presented an impressive argume

Re: Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01:49PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > In a recent paper entitled > > “Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation”: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447 > > Jan-Markus Schwindt has presented an impressive argument against the > > many-world interpr

Re: Nothing

On 21 Apr 2012, at 19:45, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary that the candidate takes with him in the teleportation or duplication experiments. The 3-views are corresponding to wha

Re: Nothing

On 21 Apr 2012, at 18:10, Stephen P. King wrote: On 4/21/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent wrote: It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside. They can be both, but UDA shows that t

Re: Nothing

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary that the > candidate takes with him in the teleportation or duplication experiments. > The 3-views are corresponding to what is roughly described by an external > observer > Y

Re: Nothing

On 4/21/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent wrote: It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside. They can be both, but UDA shows that this leads to a reduction of physics to arithmetic. Th

Re: Nothing

On 20 Apr 2012, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2012, at 22:04, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest p

Re: Nothing

On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2012, at 22:04, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest part of the mind

Re: Nothing

On 20 Apr 2012, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences between various increasingly convoluted "views" and yet you can't give a single example of two things being identica

Re: Nothing

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences >> between various increasingly convoluted "views" and yet you can't give a >> single example of two things being identical by what you call "the 3-view" >> but not by "the

Re: Nothing

On 20 Apr 2012, at 17:28, John Clark wrote: I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences between various increasingly convoluted "views" and yet you can't give a single example of two things being identical by what you call "the 3-view" but not by "the 1-views themse

Re: Nothing

2012/4/20 John Clark > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> fortunately they use things other than mind to explain how mind works. >>> >> >> > Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation >> explains only the behavior. >> > > Only?! However unfortunate it may

Re: Nothing

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> fortunately they use things other than mind to explain how mind works. >> > > > Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation > explains only the behavior. > Only?! However unfortunate it may be the fact remains that in dealing

Re: Nothing

On 19 Apr 2012, at 22:04, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest part of the mind body "problem" is figuring out what the hell the problem is. There tun

Re: Nothing

On 19 Apr 2012, at 19:04, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi David, I attach a comment by Victor Stenger on Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing". You might also want to follow the link to David Albert's critical review. Is it meaningful to speak of a "nothing" beyond the void of RQFT? Or bey

Re: Nothing

David: when I first tried to make sense of the 'world' (that was after retirement and ~200 recently issued books on advanced 'thoughts') I started with an 'ode': In the Beginning there was Nothingness and when Nothingness realized it's Nothingness, it changed. becoming a "Somethingness". - The rest

Re: Nothing

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hmm... They are not aware of the mind body problem > Nor am I aware of any such problem. The hardest part of the mind body "problem" is figuring out what the hell the problem is. The religious demand a explanation of mind, by which they mea

Re: Nothing

Hi David, I attach a comment by Victor Stenger on Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing". You might also want to follow the link to David Albert's critical review. Is it meaningful to speak of a "nothing" beyond the void of RQFT? Or beyond the truths of arithmetic? http://blog.talking

Re: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Le 25-mai-05, à 13:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Lee Corbin writes: > But we *still* don't know what it feels like to *be* the code > implemented on a computer. > We might be able to guess, perhaps from analogy with our own > experience, perhaps by running the code in our head; but once

RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Lee Corbin writes: > But we *still* don't know what it feels like to *be* the code > implemented on a computer. > We might be able to guess, perhaps from analogy with our own > experience, perhaps by running the code in our head; but once > we start doing either of these things, we are replacin

RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Stathis writes > Lee Corbin writes: > > > I anticipate that in the future it will, as you say so well, > > be shown that "appropriate brain states necessarily lead to > > conscious states", except I also expect that by then the > > meaning of "conscious states" will be vastly better informed > >

RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Lee Corbin writes: [quoting Stathis] > I would still say that even if it could somehow > be shown that appropriate brain states necessarily lead to conscious states, > which I suspect is the case, it would still not be clear how this comes > about, and it would still not be clear what this is

Re: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Le 24-mai-05, à 14:03, Lee Corbin a écrit : Yes, but I don't think that there is any answer to the "hard problem". Concretely, I conjecture that of the 10^5000 or so possible strings of 5000 words in the English language, not a single one of them solves this problem. And in French ?;)

RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Stathis writes > > Do you imagine that it's possible that we could go to > > another star, and encounter beings who discoursed with > > us about every single other thing, yet denied that they > > had consciousness, and professed that they had no idea > > what we were talking about? > > The above

RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Lee Corbin wrote: A friend sends me this link: http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html which will perhaps be of interest to a number of people here. But the familiar first sentence just sends me into orbit: The hard problem of consciousness, according to David Chalmers

Re: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Dear Lee, Are we not dancing around the Turing Test here? Stephen - Original Message - From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EverythingList" Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 2:23 PM Subject: RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C! Bruno writes

RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Bruno writes > > Do you imagine that it's possible that we could go to > > another star, and encounter beings who discoursed with > > us about every single other thing, yet denied that they > > had consciousness, and professed that they had no idea > > what we were talking about? Yes or No! I want

Re: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

Le 22-mai-05, à 08:27, Lee Corbin a écrit : But the familiar first sentence just sends me into orbit: The hard problem of consciousness, according to David Chalmers, is explaining why and how experience is generated by certain particular configurations of physical stuff. Just how

Re: Nothing trivial

describe an analog universe.  Norman   - Original Message - From: Ron McFarland To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 8:35 AM Subject: RE: Nothing trivial   . . .  There are some *very* educated people on this list, some come at the genre of this list

RE: Nothing trivial

On 22 May 2004 at 6:26, george wrote: > As a novice lurker on this list: > You have given me an opening. > The universe is infinite in time and space. That's the only logical > way for it to be. You must agree. How could it arise from nothingness. > > Altho appearing random, every effect has a

Re: Stability re Nothing and Everything

Fine, you are trying to provide a path for the creation, or a rational for the existence, of the Plenitude. You describe the Superverse as an enormous fractal of possible machines. But nowhere do you discuss some of the most important question, in my view, the perception of the self and the fi

Stability re Nothing and Everything

My current approach to this. Once Nothing becomes Everything to answer its own stability, the question of the stability of Nothing is no longer meaningful to Everything neither is "Nothing?" itself, so Everything is now stuck as Everything. Hal