On 22 Nov 2011, at 10:01, Pierz wrote:
OK, at last some time to sit down and reply properly. I want to come
back on this point about measuring proportions of an infinite set -
the measure theory you speak of. Now it seems clear enough that to
measure such proportions (say, the proportion of eve
OK, at last some time to sit down and reply properly. I want to come
back on this point about measuring proportions of an infinite set -
the measure theory you speak of. Now it seems clear enough that to
measure such proportions (say, the proportion of even numbers in the
set of natural numbers) on
On 20 Nov 2011, at 21:54, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:23:57PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ricardo,
On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:33, R AM wrote:
Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are
derived from UDA?
He has some health problem, and rarely finish
On 20 Nov 2011, at 17:27, Jason Resch wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I had few questions regarding some of the things said in your post.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
David Deutsch's idea
of a good explanation is one that closely matches
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27:20AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > More general physical principals like the Schrodinger equation might be
> > applicable to all observers if it is truly, as Russell staid, a theory of
> > observat
Yes - the terminology of complex numbers in Mathematics (and
real/imaginary numbers) is unfortunate. Forunately, hardly anyone gets
confused :).
I am interested in Eric Vanderbusch's result, of course, because one
of the least satisfactory parts of my derivation of quantum mechanics
is the use of
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27:20AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> >
> More general physical principals like the Schrodinger equation might be
> applicable to all observers if it is truly, as Russell staid, a theory of
> observation. But something like the weight of the electron, the
> Gravitation
Russell,
5 minutes after I "sent" my letter on complexity to you, here is your next
piece explaining that I misunderstood the topic.
Of cours "a theory on complex numbers" is quite different from what I had
in mind.
Sorry
John M
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:23:57PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Ricardo,
>
> On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:33, R AM wrote:
>
> >Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are
> >derived from UDA?
> >
> He has some health problem, and rarely finish papers. Sorry. I work
> hard to encou
On 19 Nov 2011, at 12:27, Pierz wrote:
Thank you for this reply. You mention a lot of theory I'm unfamiliar
with as yet, so I will have to do some study before I can make a
sensible response.
OK.
I've never heard you call it a problem rather than
a solution before, but that enhances my un
Hi Bruno,
I had few questions regarding some of the things said in your post.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
>
> David Deutsch's idea
>> of a good explanation is one that closely matches the structure of the
>> thing it describe
Ricardo,
On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:33, R AM wrote:
Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are
derived from UDA?
He has some health problem, and rarely finish papers. Sorry. I work
hard to encourage him to finish a paper on those complex numbers. I
will let you know if
Hi Ricardo,
On 19 Nov 2011, at 16:12, R AM wrote:
I've been following the list for a couple of months now and I sort
of share Piertz worries about randomness. Here is a summary of what
I've understood this far.
The UDA might imply lots of white rabbits but only those
computations with sel
Has Eric Vandenbush written a paper about how complex numbers are derived
from UDA?
Ricardo
El nov 19, 2011 9:49 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" escribió:
>
> On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
>
> In a previous post I launched a kamizake assault on UDA which was
>> justly cut to shreds on the basis
Dear Bruno,
I've been following the list for a couple of months now and I sort of share
Piertz worries about randomness. Here is a summary of what I've understood
this far.
The UDA might imply lots of white rabbits but only those computations with
self-reference to have to be taken into account.
I think Evan Harris Walker makes the same point in The Physics of
Consciousness (a book that provides a very clear explanation of Bell's
theorem, though his speculations on the brain appear egregiously
wrong). I don't think though that the point you're making here is
quite the same as mine however
Thank you for this reply. You mention a lot of theory I'm unfamiliar
with as yet, so I will have to do some study before I can make a
sensible response. I've never heard you call it a problem rather than
a solution before, but that enhances my understanding of where these
ideas fit in your field.
On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
In a previous post I launched a kamizake assault on UDA which was
justly cut to shreds on the basis of a number of misunderstandings on
my part, perhaps most crucially my conflation of information and
computation. I claimed that the UD cannot be distinguis
On 11/18/2011 6:02 PM, Pierz wrote:
So if there are infinite pathways where I turn into a giraffe, as
there must be, there is no way for my 1-p experience to select
probabilistically among these pathways. I can no longer say, if the
set of calculation pathways is infinite, that giraffe transforma
In a previous post I launched a kamizake assault on UDA which was
justly cut to shreds on the basis of a number of misunderstandings on
my part, perhaps most crucially my conflation of information and
computation. I claimed that the UD cannot be distinguished from the
set of all possible informatio
20 matches
Mail list logo
