Hi Jack,
On 09 Feb 2009, at 18:19, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> good idea to resume UDA again
>
> Bruno, I will post on the subject - but not yet. I do not want to
> get sidetracked from improving my paper.
I guess you understand that I do think that an
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> good idea to resume UDA again
Bruno, I will post on the subject - but not yet. I do not want to get
sidetracked from improving my paper.
> I see you have make some progress on the subject (but not yet on
> diplomacy, unless your "crackpot" wording
On 07 Feb 2009, at 19:05, Jack Mallah wrote:
> Bruno is still pushing his crackpot UDA.
What is it that you (still) don't understand? (good idea to resume UDA
again, and so the question is asked also to the newbies).
Please help yourself by printing the PDF slide
1) The (re)definition o
So far the responses here have not been as hostile as I feared :)
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> are you open to the idea
> that there might be truths about subjectivity (such as
> truths about what philosophers call 'qualia') which
> cannot be reduced to purely physical statements? Ar
Hello Jack,
> I could tell you what's wrong with his MGA, but I'm here to deal with the QS
> paper first.
I appreciate your prioritizing your paper, but I would be interested in
what you find wrong with the MGA.
By the way, as I mentioned in a previous mail to John, my departure from
materia
2009/2/8 Jack Mallah :
> Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on average each has 1/N of your
> original measure. I guess that's why you think the measure decreases. But
> the sum of the measures is N/N of the original.
>
> This is trivially obvious so I saw no reason to mention it e
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 10:05:14AM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish wrote:
> > So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
>
> Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
> this list. That's why I'm here now - to
Hi,
2009/2/7 Jack Mallah
>
> --- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish wrote:
> > So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
>
> Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
> this list. That's why I'm here now - to see if there are any clarifications
>
It seems to me that discussions of quantum immortality often founder on the
fact that people don't make their assumptions about philosophy of mind
explicit, or don't have a well-thought-out position on metaphysical issues
relating to mind in the first place. For example, Jaques, are you assumin
9 matches
Mail list logo