I think taking a fundamental look at this problem could be fruitful. Here is
an idea from an article that I have been working on hopefully to publish.
Imagine the MW to be total chaos (like the primeval chaos, Tohu va Bohu, full
of potentialities but with nothing inside???) . Time could then be
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 05:35:28PM +0200, Gilles HENRI wrote:
> James, here you assume that the conscious process derives from physical
> laws, exactly what I support. In the "everything computable exists",
> nothing prevents to generate Universes where conscious structures do exist,
> but don't h
Ah - you've just pointed out the fallacy in my last post. I retract
it. This is a nicer problem than I had imagined.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles HENRI [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 4:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
> I'm just skimming atthe moment, but the idea of " universes
>containing SAS apparently observing a environment without physical laws."
>seems absurd. How can a process occur, such as the process of observing,
>without athe necessary sequence appearing to obey laws?
James, here you assume
Gilles Henri wrote:
>Indeed I think we agree on what is the key point. Let me precise my
>position with respect to comp: I indeed think that conscious properties are
>related to computational properties. What I try to argue is
>1) that this computation can not be duplicated like an ordinary softw
Russell Standish wrote:
>I believe that the statement m(C) >> m(B) is related to the problem of
>why we should believe we have evolved by Darwinian evolution rather
>than just created "ex-nihilo" as Creation Scientists would have us believe.
(cf Gilles Henri:
>> >A : the subset of universes wit
--Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 3:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why physical laws
>
> > >
> > >I'll try to put it in more quantitati
>
>My feeling, Gilles, is that you have an excellent understanding of my
>point. Now, for some reason you don't believe in comp, and for that
>reason, you take my counter-intuitive result as an opportunity to throw
>away
>the comp hypothesis.
Indeed I think we agree on what is the key point. Let
>
> I enjoyed this post very much. I have one question and a comment.
> Q: I didn't know that the most general field for a vector space
> is the set of complex numbers; why is this so?
> Comment: You ask why QM should be linear. In the MWI FAQ, Price
> gives a good Anthropic argument for why
> >
> >I'll try to put it in more quantitative form. I assume I can give a
> >"measure" of the set of possible Universes and separate it into three
> >classes:
> >A : the subset of universes without conscious beings
> >B : the subset of universes containing SAS apparently observing a
> >environmen
I enjoyed this post very much. I have one question and a comment.
Q: I didn't know that the most general field for a vector space
is the set of complex numbers; why is this so?
Comment: You ask why QM should be linear. In the MWI FAQ, Price
gives a good Anthropic argument for why this should
Gilles Henri:
>If you admit that the others and the external environment do not really
>exist, it is difficult to understand why "they" (more precisely, the
>representation we have from them) should obey precise laws, even
>statistical. That's what I tried to develop in the next paragraph.
Bruno
>Gilles Henri wrote
>>I suspect that the comp hypothesis would in fact favour the solution where
>>there is actually no external world at all, but only your (for me, my!)
>>mind, because it is much shorter to describe ONLY a brain state than the
>>whole Universe surrounding it, although perfectly
Gilles Henri wrote
>I suspect that the comp hypothesis would in fact favour the solution where
>there is actually no external world at all, but only your (for me, my!)
>mind, because it is much shorter to describe ONLY a brain state than the
>whole Universe surrounding it, although perfectly equiv
A 11:16 +0100 9/06/99, Marchal a écrit:
>WHY PHYSICAL LAWS ?
>---
>
>>Chris Maloney wrote:
>><<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
>>not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
>>simply because the structures that do obey phys
WHY PHYSICAL LAWS ?
---
>Chris Maloney wrote:
><<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
>not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
>simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are more
>numerous than those that do
> Dr. Russell Standish wrote:
>
> One of the biggest problems is that in Relativity, there is no well
> defined concept of "now" - the locus of contemporary events depends on
> one's frame of reference.
>
> You've probably seen where Tegmark maps spatial and temporal dimensions
> to consider whi
05 AM
> To: everything-list
> Subject: Re: Why physical laws
>
> Alastair Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > Christopher,
> >
> > I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and
> the
> > ideas presented overlap to a degree with my o
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and the
> ideas presented overlap to a degree with my own, but there is one question
> that I have, if I may, which I mention below.
>
> From: Christopher Maloney <[EMAIL PROTECT
19 matches
Mail list logo
