Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 08 Apr 2017, at 05:10, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Apr 2017 2:11 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/7/2017 5:12 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 7 Apr 2017 11:53 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As I remarked before, it is as if consciousness were concea

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 08 Apr 2017, at 02:12, David Nyman wrote: On 7 Apr 2017 11:53 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As I remarked before, it is as if consciousness were concealed from the outside by a two-part public/private encryption scheme. Whereas the public part

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 8 Apr 2017 2:11 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/7/2017 5:12 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 7 Apr 2017 11:53 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As I remarked before, it is as if consciousness were concealed from the > outside by a two-part public/priva

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 4/7/2017 5:12 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 7 Apr 2017 11:53 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As I remarked before, it is as if consciousness were concealed from the outside by a two-part public/privat

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 7 Apr 2017 11:53 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > As I remarked before, it is as if consciousness were concealed from the > outside by a two-part public/private encryption scheme. Whereas the public > part is in principle entirely extrinsically inspect

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 7 Apr 2017 11:22 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 07 Apr 2017, at 14:21, David Nyman wrote: On 7 April 2017 at 11:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Apr 2017, at 00:11, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Apr 2017 6:44 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 06 Apr 2017, at 12:02, David Nyman wr

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As I remarked before, it is as if consciousness were concealed from the outside by a two-part public/private encryption scheme. Whereas the public part is in principle entirely extrinsically inspectable the decryption can be completed only in terms of

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 07 Apr 2017, at 14:21, David Nyman wrote: On 7 April 2017 at 11:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2017, at 00:11, David Nyman wrote: On 6 Apr 2017 6:44 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 06 Apr 2017, at 12:02, David Nyman wrote: On 6 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 7 April 2017 at 11:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Apr 2017, at 00:11, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Apr 2017 6:44 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 06 Apr 2017, at 12:02, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 6 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:51, Davi

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 07 Apr 2017, at 00:11, David Nyman wrote: On 6 Apr 2017 6:44 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 06 Apr 2017, at 12:02, David Nyman wrote: On 6 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:51, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote:

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 06 Apr 2017, at 22:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/6/2017 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Apr 2017, at 20:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purport

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 6 Apr 2017 6:44 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 06 Apr 2017, at 12:02, David Nyman wrote: On 6 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:51, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 4/6/2017 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Apr 2017, at 20:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for h

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 06 Apr 2017, at 12:02, David Nyman wrote: On 6 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:51, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 6 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:51, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purp

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:51, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis f

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 05 Apr 2017, at 20:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has given a

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 05 Apr 2017, at 12:54, David Nyman wrote: On 5 Apr 2017 9:54 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has gi

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 5 Apr 2017 7:46 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has given a tech

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 4/5/2017 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has given a technical refutation of this position, but I'm in

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 5 Apr 2017 9:54 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has given a technical refutation of this position, but I'm i

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

I add a commentary. Penrose and Hammerof did agree at the start, but then Hammerof's plea for a quantum brain made him back into computationalism, as a quantum computer is still a universal number. Penrose did not, as he was aware of this, and seem to want "non- computationalism", so he ne

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 05 Apr 2017, at 06:28, Jason Resch wrote: In my view, Penrose's theory that computation could not explain human thought was based on the flawed idea that there exist problems that humans could solve which no computer could. I prepared the following to offer my explanation for why this i

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

On 04 Apr 2017, at 16:47, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking about the Lucas/Penrose view of the purported limitations of computation as the basis for human thought. I know that Bruno has given a technical refutation of this position, but I'm insufficiently competent in the relevant are

Re: Question for Bruno about Lucas/Penrose

In my view, Penrose's theory that computation could not explain human thought was based on the flawed idea that there exist problems that humans could solve which no computer could. I prepared the following to offer my explanation for why this is an unsupported supposition: - In gener

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 6 December 2013 14:35, meekerdb wrote: > Yeah, that's Susskinds firewall idea. Just above the event horizon, > within a few Planck lengths, the strings corresponding to stuff that fell > in are spread over the surface and their degrees of freedom account for the > entropy. But the same info

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 12/5/2013 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, except that the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't understood. So are you say

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb wrote: > The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, > except that the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which > isn't understood. > So are you saying that black holes have emergent entropy, and that it wouldn't be "

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 12/5/2013 2:35 AM, LizR wrote: On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how a living being select relevant information from the environment for their needs. I think that

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

I think with black holes there's a physically natural coarse-graining defined by the "no-hair theorem" which says that in classical general relativity, the only distinguishing characteristics of black holes are mass, charge and angular momentum, they bear no other traces of the particular configura

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

As far as I remember, the entropy of the black hole is measured in absolute terms. that is, taking the information from the most fundamental level, at the Planck scale. But the entropy of a jar is relative to the jar broken state, not absolute. The example of a gas is more clear than the one of th

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is > how a living being select relevant information from the environment for > their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the > activity of the mind at th

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how a living being select relevant information from the environment for their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is computation intensiv

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:21:32 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > > > > 2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg > > >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: >>> >>> I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his >>> statement. First, what

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg > > > On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: >> >> I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his >> statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, >> dreams. But those of the biochemical

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

A good exposition. It doesn't address the questions of the alignment of thermodynamic, radiation, and spacetime expansion though. This paper may be of interest: Arrows of Time in the Bouncing Universes of the No-boundary Quantum State James Hartle

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

; -Original Message- > From: Alberto G. Corona > To: everything-list > Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 6:38 am > Subject: Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether > information is physical. > > Yes there is no loss of information* at the lowest level,* that is at

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: > > I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his > statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, > dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our > n

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

? -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 6:38 am Subject: Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Yes there is no loss of information at the lowest level, that is at the quantum level . But at the

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: > But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there is no > entropy increase and no heat. > But if it's reversible then there is no irreversible change in information either (such as what you'd get if you erased information) and Lan

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that ever

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

Yes there is no loss of information* at the lowest level,* that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to def

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 04 Dec 2013, at 03:17, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, e

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems

Re: question for Bruno

Hello Terren, On 18 Aug 2011, at 03:52, Terren Suydam wrote: Hey Bruno, Given a machine's inability to prove its own consistency, OK. That is Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. and how this result gives rise to the many logical distinctions that map to the hypostases (per Plotinus) a

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 15-nov.-05, à 06:21, uv a écrit : uv: that this 'strong mechanistic' approach of Bruno really leaves a lot of the real world outside its bailiwick. bm: Could you elaborate just a little bit. I am not sure I understand. uv: Well you state elsewhere bm; What I called "strong mechan

Re: Question for Bruno

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:21:20AM -, uv wrote: > Bruno wrote on November 14, 2005 3:02 PM > > . > > > this group, where I tried to explain its relevance. This is > > > because of the peculiar way you send emails > > The above refers to Russell's emails and the fact that they

Re: Question for Bruno

Yes, well I'm not prepared to go to that much effort, when I don't know whether it will be good for me :) I turned to Wikipedia (collective groanings from the list I hear?), which has this to say on the subject of self-identity (which I guess is the relevant bit of Parfit): "Self identity

Re: Question for Bruno

t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "uv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Everything-List List" Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Question for Bruno > > Le 13-nov.-05, à 12:32, uv a écrit : > > > I had not read your email at the time of my email sent to

Re: Question for Bruno

Bruno wrote on November 14, 2005 2:57 PM > The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) *is* the proof that physics > is reducible to computer science. The proof is informal, non > mathematical, yet complete in itself. > I got indeed sort of quantum > logics, and I take this as a confirmation (not

Re: Question for Bruno

Russell Standish wrote on 13/11/2005 > Perhaps you can explain Parfit's ideas. I'm not familiar with them. The are partly incorporated in his book "Reasons and Persons" Oxford (1984) available in many good academic libraries, and in his papers.

Re: Question for Bruno

Russell Staandish wrote > Equivalence in the sense of category theory's notion of duality. In > Venn diagrams, for instance, the empty set is the dual of the > universal set. > More particularly to the "bitstring ensemble" ASKA "Schmidhuber > ensemble"* or UD*, the empty observer moment can be id

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 13-nov.-05, à 12:32, uv a écrit : I had not read your email at the time of my email sent to this group, where I tried to explain its relevance. This is because of the peculiar way you send emails. I mentioned in my email, the fact that this 'strong mechanistic' approach of Bruno really leav

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 13-nov.-05, à 06:35, uv a écrit : Bruno wrote on Saturday, November 12, 2005 3:37 PM Indeed the link with quantum suicide and comp suicide are in my older paper "Informatique théorique et philosophie de l'esprit, Toulouse 1988". Also explained in my 1991 paper "Mechanism and personal ident

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 12-nov.-05, à 21:45, Riou Teva a écrit : Bruno Marchal a écrit : Yes, I mean looking the same event (a finished ensemble of instants) forever from the first person perspective. Nevertheless I think the probability, that a possible event happens, increase with the course of time. On an

Re: Question for Bruno

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:17:15AM -, uv wrote: > Russell Standish wrote on 13/11/2005 > > > I noticed we'd crossed in the post. But please explain why time in > > gaol and hypnogic myoclonus have different 1- and 3- effects? > > Actually I think that one of my posts, the relevant one, has >

Re: Question for Bruno

Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Temporal recurrance requires a finite set of states, or an upper bound > on the information contained with observer moments. In the sorts of > plenitudes considered here, there is no such upper bound - OMs can > contain aribitrarily large amounts of informati

Re: Question for Bruno

Russell Standish wrote on 13/11/2005 > I noticed we'd crossed in the post. But please explain why time in > gaol and hypnogic myoclonus have different 1- and 3- effects? Actually I think that one of my posts, the relevant one, has disappeared altogether so I enclose a attachment of it. The differ

Re: Question for Bruno

vay's theorem, I doubt > if he can. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "uv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Sent: Saturday, Novem

Re: Question for Bruno

quot;Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "uv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:39 PM Subject: Re: Question for Bruno

Re: Question for Bruno

witches can be startling. The cause of myclonic twitching is unknown: they appear to be associated with (a) anxiety and (b) faint stimulus." There is a lot more that can be written on the topic. Some claim a similar effect occurs with 'lucid dreaming' as well. - Original Message

Re: Question for Bruno

Temporal recurrance requires a finite set of states, or an upper bound on the information contained with observer moments. In the sorts of plenitudes considered here, there is no such upper bound - OMs can contain aribitrarily large amounts of information. If we we really did live in Jorge's libra

Re: Question for Bruno

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:37:54PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > There are a lot of ways that can > >be done, possibly with very different parameters. (e.g. like in > >Parfit's conjectures, which involved identity in even very > >specific examples like say a long spell in prison). Something like

Re: Question for Bruno

Bruno Marchal a écrit : Yes, I mean looking the same event (a finished ensemble of instants) forever from the first person perspective. Nevertheless I think the probability, that a possible event happens, increase with the course of time. On an infinite time (a point of view of an immortal

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 12-nov.-05, à 14:53, uv a écrit : [bruno] Now, the "real" important things to grasp for making clear the way I use modal logic, consists in understanding the theorem of Solovay. Have you heard about it? It generalizes in some way the theorem of Godel and the theorem of Lob. it makes preci

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 11-nov.-05, à 20:59, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Le Vendredi 11 Novembre 2005 15:24, Bruno Marchal a écrit : I have also a problem with the expression "staying in the same branche": you always split or differentiate on 2^aleph_0 branches. Do you mean branches looking the same from the first p

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 11-nov.-05, à 20:42, GottferDamnt a écrit : Hi, Bruno Marchal a écrit : I have also a problem with the expression "staying in the same branche": you always split or differentiate on 2^aleph_0 branches. Do you mean branches looking the same from the first person perspective? Yes, I mean

Re: Question for Bruno

can be done, possibly with very different parameters. (e.g. like in Parfit's conjectures, which involved identity in even very specific examples like say a long spell in prison). Something like 30-40% of people get hypnagogic myoclonus and that is another (slightly differing) case. - Original

Re: Question for Bruno

Le Vendredi 11 Novembre 2005 15:24, Bruno Marchal a écrit : > I have also a problem with the expression "staying in the same > branche": you always split or differentiate on 2^aleph_0 branches. Do > you mean branches looking the same from the first person perspective? I agree that we split every m

Re: Question for Bruno

Hi, Bruno Marchal a écrit : I have also a problem with the expression "staying in the same branche": you always split or differentiate on 2^aleph_0 branches. Do you mean branches looking the same from the first person perspective? Yes, I mean looking the same event (a finished ensemble of in

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 11-nov.-05, à 13:59, uv a écrit : GottferDamnt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Said on 10 Nov some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the same branches for an eternity? For example, can you stay in a box (even if it is not very probable) forever? Bruno had written on 1/11/05 I b

Re: Question for Bruno

Le Jeudi 10 Novembre 2005 19:48, GottferDamnt a écrit : I have another question: I know that with the quantum theory of immortality, the non-cul-de-sac conjecture involve that there are always some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the same branches for an eternity? For

Re: Question for Bruno

om: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:56 PM Subject: Re: Question for Bruno > Le Jeudi 10 Novembre 2005 19:48, GottferDamnt a écrit : > > I have another question: I know that with the quantum theory of > > immortality, the non-cu

Re: Question for Bruno

Le Jeudi 10 Novembre 2005 19:48, GottferDamnt a écrit : > I have another question: I know that with the quantum theory of > immortality, the non-cul-de-sac conjecture involve that there are always > some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the same > branches for an eternity? For

Re: Question for Bruno

I have another question: I know that with the quantum theory of immortality, the non-cul-de-sac conjecture involve that there are always some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the same branches for an eternity? For example, can you stay in a box (even if it is not very proba

Re: Question for Bruno

oolos (and perhaps irrelevantly "Forever Undecided" though years ago I did a bit of logic from Smullyan's "Theory of Formal systems" monograph which unfortunately now seems to have gone the way of all good books). - Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 08-nov.-05, à 18:48, uv a écrit : Bruno wrote I don't know about the work of Heather and Rossiter, except some thought on quantum computation I just found by Googling. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit. I can answer you briefly on that one immediately by giving URL http://computin

Re: Question for Bruno

Bruno wrote > I don't know about the work of Heather and Rossiter, except some > thought on quantum computation I just found by Googling. Perhaps you > could elaborate a little bit. I can answer you briefly on that one immediately by giving URL http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/CGNR1/advstudiesmat

Re: Question for Bruno

Le 07-nov.-05, à 13:23, uv a écrit : Bruno said on FOR List(Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide) That necessity is implied itself by the incompleteness phenomena, but that is technical (ask me on the everything-list if interested). Ok I am interested. Also (separate query)