On 5/1/2011 3:31 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:20 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 5/1/2011 7:08 AM, smi.
From: meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 5/1/2011 7:08 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
> I think that in this discussion one is assuming that the classical
> picture of an OM applies and that then le
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 12:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 01 May 2011, at 16:08, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
> I think that in this discussion one is assuming that the classical
> picture of an OM applies and that then leads to the
On 5/1/2011 7:08 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I think that in this discussion one is assuming that the classical
picture of an OM applies and that then leads to the false notion that
you need to look at a sequence of states. But this is completely
false. Obviously the brain is effectively classi
On 01 May 2011, at 16:08, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I think that in this discussion one is assuming that the classical
picture of an OM applies and that then leads to the false notion
that you need to look at a sequence of states. But this is
completely false. Obviously the brain is effectiv
I think that in this discussion one is assuming that the classical
picture of an OM applies and that then leads to the false notion that
you need to look at a sequence of states. But this is completely false.
Obviously the brain is effectively classical, but classicality from
quantum dynamics i
On 30 Apr 2011, at 09:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/29/2011 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Apr 2011, at 02:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion of an
“observer moment” corresponding to “the smallest possible
conscious experience” related to
On 4/29/2011 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Apr 2011, at 02:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion of an
“observer moment” corresponding to “the smallest possible conscious
experience” related to Bruno’s concept of substitution level? ISTM
th
On 29 Apr 2011, at 02:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Please allow me to ask another question. Is the notion of an
“observer moment” corresponding to “the smallest possible conscious
experience” related to Bruno’s concept of substitution level? ISTM
that both act like the idea of a coarse gra
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:14 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:20:24PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> But does this only make the problem worse? The qu
From: meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:43 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
On 4/28/2011 2:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
But does this only make the problem worse? The quantity of information
that would have to
On 4/28/2011 2:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
But does this only make the problem worse? The quantity of
information that would have to be specified in analogue recordings
would be at least some power greater than the information necessary to
specify the finite bit digital ver
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:20:24PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> But does this only make the problem worse? The quantity of
> information that would have to be specified in analogue recordings
> would be at least some power greater than the information necessary to
> specif
5:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reading The Theory of Nothing
I can't help but think you are overanalysing things, but who
knows. ISTM that your concerns are about an unjustified digitisation
of reality.
In saying recording, I'm not assuming that the recording
I can't help but think you are overanalysing things, but who
knows. ISTM that your concerns are about an unjustified digitisation
of reality.
In saying recording, I'm not assuming that the recording is digital,
nor that the "single predetermined worldline" is digital either. The
argument also work
15 matches
Mail list logo
