Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-05 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential, as matter, 
which is actual.
Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism. So 
altogether
we have form, matter, and creator.

According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are just mathematical 
constructions, ideas or blueprints.
They only become physical when the wavicle (what Plato called an idea
or form) collapses and becomes a particle or whatever. 

As verification, here's an account of Plato's version of creation taken from 
the Timeaus:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaPuz

The Timaeus is also famous for its account of the creation of the universe by 
the Demiurge [a creator, ie collapser of the wavicles]. 
Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato抯 Demiurge does 
not create ex nihilo, but rather 
orders the cosmos out of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the eternal Forms 
[or quanta or wavicles]. Plato takes the 
four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to be 
composed of various aggregates of 
triangles [or wavicles, forms or quanta] ), making various compounds of these 
into what he calls the Body of the 
Universe [matter]. 

Of all of Plato抯 works, the Timaeus provides the most detailed conjectures in 
the areas we now regard as the 
natural sciences: physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers




On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary
numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.


Agreed.
But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to be a 
physical state.


There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of addition and 
multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding between the additive realm 
and the multiplicative realm, universal numbers cannot not exist and they 
introduced an incredible mess in platonia. 


I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the many roots 
of an equation.


Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we take as 
physical, both the particles and their superposition states, comes from an 
earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs) from the fact that each 
first person determined by a relative universal numbers states, is associated 
to all computations going through that states.


So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in stable and 
sharable fashion, apparently, for the measure-winning universal numbers.


A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the unboundable 
richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many possible perspectives.


We must be humble. Today, as far as we know, assuming comp, the physical 
universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to solve a fourth degree 
diophantine polynomials.
But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also be more than 
that.


There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the interesting 
question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very hard problem in math. 
But the contrary would have been astonishing. There is no reason that the 
theological reality is simple, especially with a brain which seems to filter 
a part of the truth, for apparently both logical and evolution based reason. 
And there is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons.


Bruno











- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers


Hi Bruno,




On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, 
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum 
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition of many 
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other 
universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a 
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a 
multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM 
consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as 
saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the 
magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. 
 


Bruno






So no problem.
- Receiving the following

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer,  
what makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of  
states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think  
people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony,  
but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single  
universe requires magical thinking.


OK.


It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural  
activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more  
confortable with the resulting model.


Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite  
palatable.


But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural  
states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?



UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a  
digital brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and  
bodies supervene on sequences of computational states, which are  
actually arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the  
ontology, anything Turing universal theorey will do).


MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that  
consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not)  
implementations of a computations. Consciousness is associated to  
all computation in arithmetic. This can be related with the first  
person indeterminacy.


Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA.



If you are interested, I will come back on this soon. Perhaps not on  
this list(*).

 I will tell here when I will come back on MGA on the FOAR list.

(*) MGA has already been discussed on this list:
http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html

Bruno





Bruno






Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for  
this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.


I think we agree,

Bruno







Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in  
Space


Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational  
power of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,  
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of  
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of  
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite  
repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly  
speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such  
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic  
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


--
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the  
Google 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 05 Feb 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential,  
as matter, which is actual.
Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism.  
So altogether

we have form, matter, and creator.

According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are just  
mathematical constructions, ideas or blueprints.

They only become physical when the wavicle (what Plato called an idea
or form) collapses and becomes a particle or whatever.

As verification, here's an account of Plato's version of creation  
taken from the Timeaus:


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaPuz

The Timaeus is also famous for its account of the creation of the  
universe by the Demiurge [a creator, ie collapser of the wavicles].
Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato’s  
Demiurge does not create ex nihilo, but rather
orders the cosmos out of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the  
eternal Forms [or quanta or wavicles]. Plato takes the
four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to  
be composed of various aggregates of
triangles [or wavicles, forms or quanta] ), making various compounds  
of these into what he calls the Body of the

Universe [matter].

Of all of Plato’s works, the Timaeus provides the most detailed  
conjectures in the areas we now regard as the

natural sciences: physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology.


That's an Aristotelian account of Plato. It is more complex than that.  
The Timaeus, should be compensated with the Parmenides, and some  
synthesis should be tried. Then this is what Plotinus did, and that is  
why, when I mention Plato, I am in the line with the neo-platonists.
I propose bridges (including 'testable one) between Plato, computer  
science and physics.


Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers


On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or  
imaginary

numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.


Agreed.
But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to  
be a physical state.


There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of  
addition and multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding  
between the additive realm and the multiplicative realm, universal  
numbers cannot not exist and they introduced an incredible mess in  
platonia.


I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the  
many roots of an equation.


Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we  
take as physical, both the particles and their superposition states,  
comes from an earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs)  
from the fact that each first person determined by a relative  
universal numbers states, is associated to all computations going  
through that states.


So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in  
stable and sharable fashion, apparently, for the measure-winning  
universal numbers.


A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the  
unboundable richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many  
possible perspectives.


We must be humble. Today, as far as we know, assuming comp, the  
physical universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to  
solve a fourth degree diophantine polynomials.
But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also  
be more than that.


There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the  
interesting question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very  
hard problem in math. But the contrary would have been astonishing.  
There is no reason that the theological reality is simple,  
especially with a brain which seems to filter a part of the truth,  
for apparently both logical and evolution based reason. And there  
is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons.


Bruno







- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers

Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes
 
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer,  
what makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-05 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi Bruno,


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:


 On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
  points A and B without invoking another universe.


 Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
 of other universes?


 The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states
 on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the
 idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that
 making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking.


 OK.


 It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.
 People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the
 resulting model.


 Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite
 palatable.


 But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states,
 not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?



 UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital
 brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene
 on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical
 relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing
 universal theorey will do).

 MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that
 consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a
 computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic.
 This can be related with the first person indeterminacy.


 Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA.



 If you are interested, I will come back on this soon. Perhaps not on this
 list(*).
  I will tell here when I will come back on MGA on the FOAR list.


I am, cool.



 (*) MGA has already been discussed on this list:
 http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html


I think I was there around that time, but possibly stressing with writing
my thesis.



 Bruno





 Bruno






 Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this,
 and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.

 I think we agree,

 Bruno







 Bruno



 So no problem.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
  *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
  *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
 quantum computers come from?


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes
  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
  *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
 number, whatever it is?


  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough 
 rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King
  It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
 infinite universes.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
  *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
  *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi,

 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
  Francisco Jos Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 , Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
 last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and
 Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga
 and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both 
 of
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
 shortcomings in the arguments of these 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary
numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.


Agreed.
But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to be  
a physical state.


There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of addition  
and multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding between the  
additive realm and the multiplicative realm, universal numbers cannot  
not exist and they introduced an incredible mess in platonia.


I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the  
many roots of an equation.


Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we take  
as physical, both the particles and their superposition states, comes  
from an earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs) from the  
fact that each first person determined by a relative universal numbers  
states, is associated to all computations going through that states.


So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in  
stable and sharable fashion, apparently, for the measure-winning  
universal numbers.


A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the  
unboundable richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many  
possible perspectives.


We must be humble. Today, as far as we know, assuming comp, the  
physical universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to solve  
a fourth degree diophantine polynomials.
But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also be  
more than that.


There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the  
interesting question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very  
hard problem in math. But the contrary would have been astonishing.  
There is no reason that the theological reality is simple,  
especially with a brain which seems to filter a part of the truth, for  
apparently both logical and evolution based reason. And there is an  
abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons.


Bruno







- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers

Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes
 
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what  
makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of  
states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people  
reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my  
understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe  
requires magical thinking. It's the same as saying that  
consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the  
magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting  
model. 

 

Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power  
of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer,  
what makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of  
states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people  
reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my  
understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe  
requires magical thinking.


OK.


It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural  
activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more  
confortable with the resulting model.


Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite  
palatable.


But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural  
states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?



UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital  
brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies  
supervene on sequences of computational states, which are actually  
arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology,  
anything Turing universal theorey will do).


MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that  
consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations  
of a computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in  
arithmetic. This can be related with the first person indeterminacy.


Bruno






Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for  
this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.


I think we agree,

Bruno







Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational  
power of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,  
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of  
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of  
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition  
of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a  
consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be  
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic  
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


--
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-04 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Hi Bruno,


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
  points A and B without invoking another universe.


 Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
 of other universes?


 The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on
 a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea
 of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that
 making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking.


 OK.


 It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.
 People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the
 resulting model.


 Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite
 palatable.


 But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states,
 not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?



 UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital
 brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene
 on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical
 relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing
 universal theorey will do).

 MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that
 consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a
 computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic.
 This can be related with the first person indeterminacy.


Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA.



 Bruno






 Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this,
 and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.

 I think we agree,

 Bruno







 Bruno



 So no problem.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
  *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
  *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
 quantum computers come from?


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes
  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
  *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
 number, whatever it is?


  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King
  It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
 infinite universes.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
  *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
  *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi,

 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
  Francisco Jos Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 , Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
 last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and
 Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga
 and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
 shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
 of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
 strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
 ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
 science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

  
 *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
 www.dreammail.org

 --
 You 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-02 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Hi Bruno,


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
 points A and B without invoking another universe.


 Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
 of other universes?


 The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on
 a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea
 of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that
 making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking.


 OK.


 It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.
 People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the
 resulting model.


 Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite
 palatable.


But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states, not
that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?


 Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this,
 and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.

 I think we agree,

 Bruno







 Bruno



 So no problem.

 - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
  *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
 quantum computers come from?


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes
  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

  - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
  *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
 number, whatever it is?


  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King
  It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
 infinite universes.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
  *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
  *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi,

 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
  Francisco Jos Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 , Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
 last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
 based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
 Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
 shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
 of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
 strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
 ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
 science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

  
 *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
 www.dreammail.org

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-02 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Hi Bruno,


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


  On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
 points A and B without invoking another universe.


  Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
 of other universes?


  The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states
 on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the
 idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that
 making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking.


 I don't think that's true.  There are ways of interpreting QM that are
 consistent and not magical.  It's just that they require accepting that
 somethings happen and some don't.



   It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural
 activity.


 But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural
 activity


Can you describe the mechanism by which that happens? I'm willing to accept
a toy model and overlook a lot of things, just give me something.


 and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the
 physical processing of information.


True, but that's a different matter. Consciousness is not a requirement for
intelligence. Or if it is it must come through some mysterious means,
because we know how to build intelligent machines but we don't know how to
build conscious ones.



 Brent

   People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with
 the resulting model.



  Bruno



  So no problem.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi Roger,

  In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
 quantum computers come from?


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes
  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
 number, whatever it is?


  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King
 It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
 universes.

  - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi,

 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
 Francisco Jos Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 , Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
 last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
 based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
 Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
 shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
 of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
 strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
 ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
 science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
 www.dreammail.org

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
   Visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-02 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:39:53 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 

 Hi Bruno,


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
  wrote:


  On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes 
  
 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, 
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
 points A and B without invoking another universe.
  

  Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other 
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition 
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different 
 of other universes?
  

  The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states 
 on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the 
 idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that 
 making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. 
   

 I don't think that's true.  There are ways of interpreting QM that are 
 consistent and not magical.  It's just that they require accepting that 
 somethings happen and some don't.


   It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural 
 activity. 
   

 But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural 
 activity and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the 
 physical processing of information.


Where does the consciousness that emerges from neural activity emerge from 
though? Is there any physical system that isn't 'processing information' on 
some scale of millennia or nanoseconds?

If we understand that the nature of consciousness is specifically to 
provide a fisheye lens ontology for a given subject, then it makes perfect 
sense that this distortion would prevent us from seeing subjectivity in the 
periphery of our lens, so to speak, where structures are too large or too 
small, too slow or too fast, too unfamiliar or too distant for us to 
identify with personally, socially, zoologically, or biologically. I 
suggest that this is a quantized scale which maps to our capacity to 
recognize and directly relate to non-human experiences.

For this reason however, functionalism actually fails, contrary to what 
most people will assume. It is because we are assembling machines in total 
ignorance of natural non-human awareness, that our hamfisted attempts have 
lead us only haltingly further on the road to either Frankenstein or HAL. 
By isolating only the tweeter range of human privacy (cognitive awareness), 
without any of the emotional bass or somatic sub-woofer, we can't access 
the full spectrum which is required to begin to access human quality 
personhood. Putting together sentences is not thinking. Matching up queries 
with responses is not understanding.

Craig  


 Brent

   People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with 
 the resulting model. 
  

  
  Bruno
  
  
  
  So no problem.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi Roger, 

  In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of 
 quantum computers come from?
  

 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough 
 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes 
  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
   
  - Receiving the following content - 
  *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger, 

  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise 
 number, whatever it is?
  

  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough 
 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
  wrote:
  
  Hi Stephen P. King 
 It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite 
 universes.
  
  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
  
  Hi,

 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! 


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space 
 Francisco Jos Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 , Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), 
 last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, 
 based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and 
 Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of 
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-02 Thread meekerdb

On 2/2/2013 2:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other 
quantum
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition of 
many
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of 
other
universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a 
same
universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a 
multiverse
because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent 
with a
single universe requires magical thinking.


I don't think that's true.  There are ways of interpreting QM that are 
consistent
and not magical.  It's just that they require accepting that somethings 
happen and
some don't.




It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.


But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural 
activity


Can you describe the mechanism by which that happens?


It's not mechanical, so I doubt that there is a 'mechanistic' explanation.  It's similar 
to Newton's explanation of gravity.  It was objected at the time that he gave no 
explanation of how gravity pushed and pulled on planets.  But when you think carefully 
about them you realize that scientific theories are mathematical models that predict 
things, but in general they don't have 'mechanisms' that fit our anthropomorphic idea of 
push and pull, cause and effect.  What is the 'mechanism' of a projection operator in 
quantum mechanics, or of the Schrodinger equation.  It may well be that consciousness is 
just how a certain kind of physical information processing 'feels' from the inside.



I'm willing to accept a toy model and overlook a lot of things, just give me 
something.


What I can give is empirical evidence and operational defintions.  An operational 
definition of consciousness is responding to accumulated information in ways that are 
intelligent/purposeful but unpredictable.



and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical
processing of information.


True, but that's a different matter. Consciousness is not a requirement for 
intelligence.


How do you know that?  I think it likely that consciousness, of some kind, always 
accompanies intelligence of a sufficiently high level - they kind we think of as learning 
from experience and being able to set multi-level goals.


Or if it is it must come through some mysterious means, because we know how to build 
intelligent machines but we don't know how to build conscious ones.


How do you know that?  How would you know that a robot you built with intelligent behavior 
was not conscious?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
 points A and B without invoking another universe.


 Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
 of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of
a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making
QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the
same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People
overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the
resulting model.



 Bruno



 So no problem.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
 quantum computers come from?


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes
  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

  - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
 whatever it is?


  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King
  It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
 infinite universes.

  - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi,

 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
 Francisco Jos Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 , Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
 last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
 based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
 Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
 shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
 of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
 strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
 ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
 science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

  
 *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
 www.dreammail.org

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what  
makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of  
states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people  
reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my  
understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe  
requires magical thinking.


OK.


It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural  
activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more  
confortable with the resulting model.


Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite  
palatable. Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is  
gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.


I think we agree,

Bruno







Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power  
of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,  
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of  
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of  
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition  
of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a  
consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be  
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic  
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


--
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 


--
You received this message 

Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-01 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

Shouldn't it be multiwavicles rather than a multiverse ? Occam's
razor suggests that. 

Why ? Mathematics is nonphysical, so I would think that superposition of
states is also nonphysical, thus needing no other physical universe
to be referred to than the one it was originally compounded for.



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-01, 12:11:55
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers




On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Bruno,




On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes 

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, 
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum 
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition of many 
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other 
universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a 
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a 
multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM 
consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. 


OK.




It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People 
overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting 
model. 


Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. 
Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and 
that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. 


I think we agree,


Bruno











Bruno






So no problem.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi Roger, 


In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum 
computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi Roger, 


I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, 
whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite 
universes.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi,

? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! 


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295


About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based 
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based 
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in 
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite 
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of 
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories 
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current 
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of 
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John 
Horgan.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-01 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno,

I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary
numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers


Hi Bruno,




On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, 
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum 
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition of many 
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other 
universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a 
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a 
multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM 
consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as 
saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the 
magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. 
 


Bruno






So no problem.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi Roger, 


In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum 
computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi Roger, 


I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, 
whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite 
universes.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi,

? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! 


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295


About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based 
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based 
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in 
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite 
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of 
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories 
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current 
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of 
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John 
Horgan.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-02-01 Thread meekerdb

On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other 
quantum paths,
like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition of many 
computations,
like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same 
universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse 
because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single 
universe requires magical thinking.


I don't think that's true.  There are ways of interpreting QM that are consistent and not 
magical.  It's just that they require accepting that somethings happen and some don't.




It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.


But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural activity and we 
don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical processing of 
information.


Brent

People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting 
model.



Bruno




So no problem.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
*Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of 
quantum
computers come from?


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in 
Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough 
rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs 
than
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories 
in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice 
discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295


  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,Manuel Alfonseca

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 
Jan 2013
(this version, v2))

This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by 
Ellis
and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic 
cosmology,
the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH
interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which 
conclude
that, in an infinite universe, planets and living 
beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We 
point to
some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these
authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite
repetition of histories in space cannot be 
considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics 
and
cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as 

Re: multiverses and quantum computers

2013-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other  
quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what  
makes them different of other universes?


Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power  
of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,  
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of  
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of  
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition  
of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a  
consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be  
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic  
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


--
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit