Re: Re: Re: Two possible ways of creating actual objects out of nothing
Hi Russell Standish Sorry, my mistake, I remembered wrong. It was somebody else. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-20, 19:00:51 Subject: Re: Re: Two possible ways of creating actual objects out of nothing On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:31:05AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish I did land on your website or look up your book. You do have some radical assumptions, one of them puzzling to me-- that time is an external variable. External to what ? mind ? the physical world ? That's not an assumption I make. The TIME postulate is that observers process distinct observations selected from an ordered set (eg a timescale). It is certainly not external to anything, as it is very much observer relative. See the discussion on pages 64-65. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Two possible ways of creating actual objects out of nothing
Hi Russell Standish I did land on your website or look up your book. You do have some radical assumptions, one of them puzzling to me-- that time is an external variable. External to what ? mind ? the physical world ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-19, 18:56:44 Subject: Re: Two possible ways of creating actual objects out of nothing On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:20:45AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish According to a web page, havege is probably the best random number generator known, but it still is not a true random number gen. There must be They are probably being modest. What they have is as close to a true random number generator as is physically possible. It beats radioactive decay and lava lamps by several orders of magnitude. ways of testing for true randomness statistically. There are, but all of them are only partial tests. Just as it is impossible (short of exhaustive enumeration) to know if one has the shortest program giving a particular sequence, it is impossible to know for certain if a given sequence is truly random (wrt a reference TM), as that requires knowing there is no program shorter than the length of the sequence iteself generating that sequence. But that doesn't really bother me if we are only talking about apparent randomness. HAVEGE is as random as the real world. Sure, it is possible that the real world is utterly deterministic, but then QM is not a true description of reality. Anyway, I looked up your theory of nothing book on wikipedia and find it very interesting. Wikipedia only has passing references to it, mainly from the Library of Babel article. You probably landed on my website :). -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Two possible ways of creating actual objects out of nothing
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:31:05AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish I did land on your website or look up your book. You do have some radical assumptions, one of them puzzling to me-- that time is an external variable. External to what ? mind ? the physical world ? That's not an assumption I make. The TIME postulate is that observers process distinct observations selected from an ordered set (eg a timescale). It is certainly not external to anything, as it is very much observer relative. See the discussion on pages 64-65. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
