On 13 May 2013, at 19:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is
a process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable
function. No?
Well, OK, but with Church Thesis, we can just say computable
function, or
On 13 May 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
I don't know. It would seem you would want to believe that if you
were going to say yes to the doctor, since the doctor is relying
functionalism to ensure the replacement works. But Bruno's UD
computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p
On 14 May 2013, at 00:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?
It computes all of them.
It computes only the computable one. But it generates all inputs and
streams, like in the
On 13 May 2013, at 23:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable? AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure
zero as a subset of the former. This is one reason why I worry about
the viability of UDA (and AUDA), it
On 14 May 2013, at 00:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some
functions would take an eternity to compute and that the number of
such vastly outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.
Non-computable function cannot be computed. But we
On 14 May 2013, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:24:09PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?
It computes all of them.
Brent
Sorry - it does
On 12 May 2013, at 22:41, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: this back-and-forth is a marvelous game to go crazy.
If I weren't me who else would be me and who whould I be?
(Only for the IRS!) It points to me at those stupid sci-fi-s about
transportation to Moskow/etc. - or another Universe, and
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been
born in your place and you
On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is a
process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable function.
No?
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05
I don't know. It would seem you would want to believe that if you were going to say yes
to the doctor, since the doctor is relying functionalism to ensure the replacement works.
But Bruno's UD computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p consciousness consists of a
sequence of states in
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively
enumerable? AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of
the former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and
AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the possible functions
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively enumerable?
It computes all of them.
Brent
AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the former. This is one
reason why I worry about the viability of
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions
would take an eternity to compute and that the number of such vastly
outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:24:09PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?
It computes all of them.
Brent
Sorry - it does not compute all functions, just all partially
Hi Russel,
Thank you for these remarks! I would see that closure under diagonalization
is important, but i wonder if there is a bit of neglect to the uniqueness
of this set. There are some indications that there may exist a continuum of
sets with this property if we assume some version of the
Right. It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing all possible programs -
most of which don't terminate and so don't compute a function at all.
Brent
On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions would
OK, so that would require that all programs would
be simultaneously 'available' for inspection for a measure to be defined
over them, no? When can that occur? Never! A non-halting program can not
be polled for a solution.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Therefore we might argue that only programs that halt can contribute to our
polls. This unfortunately does not allow for a true 3p.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so that would require that all programs would
be simultaneously
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
guy actually tried it but fell in love
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
recurring theme -- quantum
ISTM that this you are everyone aspect is the definition of that it is
like to be at the substitution level.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35
On Sat, May 11, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven,
Then you must believe that the word proof should be expunged from the
English language as there would be no time when it would be appropriate to
use it. I disagree and rather like the word.
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you developed
with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been born in your place and
you wouldn't be conscious? Or if one unexpressed gene was different, would it
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
you developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
been born in your place and you
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:14 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven,
Then you must believe that the word proof should be expunged from the
English language as there would be no
On 12 May 2013, at 18:14, John Clark wrote:
All religions are stupid but some religions are stupider (and more
dangerous) than others.
All the religions using propaganda, arguments per authority, invalid
reasoning, violence, etc. ... sure, all those religions are bad.
Science does not
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You keep assuming that because I don't vow allegiance to the MWI faith
that I reject it. I said I liked it, I'm just not compelled to accept it
so
On 12 May 2013, at 19:33, Jason Resch wrote:
My question is more like: if a different sperm (besides the one that
led to you) had made it, what would you expect to be experiencing
right now? Would you expect to be experiencing nothing at all?
Lol
Does the soul of the sperm go to Heaven,
On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
developed with
Brent: this back-and-forth is a marvelous game to go crazy.
If I weren't me who else would be me and who whould I be?
(Only for the IRS!) It points to me at those stupid sci-fi-s about
transportation to Moskow/etc. - or another Universe, and 'living there' -
am I still myself? No way. If I 'live'
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a
tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette
wheel
On 10 May 2013, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?
Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
And why should a religion be illogical?
On 10 May 2013, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.
Not only can strongly held religious beliefs not be proven to be correct
they can often be proven to be incorrect, of course that fact doesn't make
the slightest difference to the
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:07 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.
Not only can strongly held religious beliefs not be proven to be correct
they can often be proven to
On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through
with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell
On 09 May 2013, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged
religion,
?
Which word didn't you understand?
but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion,
On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's
explained by Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local
hidden variable.
Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.
Sure
On 09 May 2013, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 09 May 2013, at 19:02, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes
On 09 May 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks.
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock
causes a
On 09 May 2013, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the
model match our observations, but Everett later showed that step
was unnecessary. The model (free of additional baggage) predicts
the same
On 09 May 2013, at 21:29, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno I stand corrected. You wrote:
Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers
written in any base is random (incompressible). But there are no
evidence at all of random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on
them seems
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks.
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in
On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by Everett's MWI
also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.
Why non local? There is
On 5/10/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.
On the contrary it is you who are begging the question. You are claiming that
measurements are reversible because your theory says they are reversible, even though
in practice they are not, and this
On 5/10/2013 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. Even more so when you see that the collapse is really an axiom saying that the
theory (QM) does not apply to observation. The old QM is really like QM + QM is false.
Then there has been that myth that observation perturbs, making the collapse
On 5/10/2013 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a tiny
change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette wheel
causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,
True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a tiny
change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette wheel
causes a HUGE change in the
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to anything?
Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
And why should a religion be illogical?
Because if it deals with big issues as religion
On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's
explained by Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of
On 10 May 2013, at 18:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.
On the contrary it is you who are begging the question. You are
claiming that measurements are reversible because your theory says
they are reversible,
On 10 May 2013, at 18:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2013 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. Even more so when you see that the collapse is really an
axiom saying that the theory (QM) does not apply to observation.
The old QM is really like QM + QM is false.
Then there has been that myth
On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by
Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz
invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect that the UD can
be considered to 'run' on chains of observer events per Knuth picture. This
gives us a nice toy model of how space-time is emergent.
On Fri, May 10, 2013
For more on Kevin Knuth's work please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz
invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect that the
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a
tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette
wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,
True, but chaotic
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?
Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
And why
On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion,
On 5/10/2013 10:34 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes
a tiny
change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the
On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark
On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Brent,
I gave a non-circular explication of that ... based on faith in some
supernatural revelation.
Right, that is not circular. Are you OK with infinite regress based
explanations?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/10/2013 8:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
So to summarize, according to you, no choice can be scientific because
science
doesn't provide certainty
Choices are inherently unscientific.
So you say. I see no reason to discuss philosophy with someone who thinks they can just
redefine
On 08 May 2013, at 17:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the
On 08 May 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion.
Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged
religion,
?
but a religion that is not
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May
On Wed, May 8, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John
Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax.
Those aren't my words either, in fact I don't even know what a butterfly
hoax is.
Numerology was always one
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged religion,
?
Which word didn't you understand?
but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion,
?
Which word didn't you understand?
On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by Everett's MWI
also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.
Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.
Sure it is. When you take the trace of the density
What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical
problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels coexist
peacefully in our world.
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks. They have
On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno
On 5/9/2013 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave
collapse, by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing
the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation
did collapse or select irreversibly,
On 5/9/2013 9:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical
problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels coexist
peacefully in our world.
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms,
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match our
observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The model (free of
additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the model with it.
He showed that
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
our observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The
model (free of additional
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
our
observations, but
Bruno I stand corrected. You wrote:
*Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers written in
any base is random (incompressible). But there are no evidence at all of
random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on them seems like abandoning
research.*
*
*
I accept math-randomness
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:07:55 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John
Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts
whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal'
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But as a rule-of-thumb it is better to tentatively assume things we cannot
see don't exist.
I meant to ask: Why?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
If I may. We do so because we cannot account for such undetectable 'things'
except perhaps as some randomness in the system that we can observe.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the
experimental evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about
that.
only
Dear Stephen,
On 07 May 2013, at 22:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in
agreement with your words above. I merely wish that I could
communicate better with you.
Thanks for telling Stephen.
Bruno
On Mon, Apr
Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in
the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes.
Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells
it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision.
Cogito ergo sum.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
2013/5/7 Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com
Dear Bruno,
As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in
agreement with your words above. I merely wish that I could communicate
better with you.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 5/8/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com mailto:jami...@gmail.com
wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
On Tue, May 7, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale
Craig Weinberg and perhaps others on this list think so too, are you also a
fan of astrology and numerology as he is? I'd really like to know so I
could best allocate my time.
John K Clark
--
You
1 - 100 of 293 matches
Mail list logo