; Did I misunderstand it? we developp FAITH (theology) in agnostically
> developed theories and progress by showing them wrong? so we may 'believe'
> what is proven wrong - only?
>
> Then again
>
> John Mikes :
>> To: everything-list
>> Sent: Sat, Nov 1,
d progress by showing them wrong? so we may 'believe'
what is proven wrong - only?
Then again
John Mikes :
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
> Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contac
th cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the
>> star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific
>> speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point
>> of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species an
On Saturday, November 1, 2014 8:20:01 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory.
>
Maybe, but the crisis right now is there are all these different camps
increasingly hostile. Each camp claims there's no crisis in science. They
then explain
of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species
and its descendents, why not go for the highest hanging fruit?
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
said that, you, from my point of view-made
> your point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why not
> go for the highest hanging fruit?
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: John Mikes
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
> Subject:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
On Fri, Oct 31
, why not go for the
highest hanging fruit?
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" unive
for but the study kind
> of seems to direct the mind towards that possibility.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05
riffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
> interactions between, parallel universes.
> >
> > In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X,
> > Professor Howard W
g/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
>
> Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions
> between, parallel universes.
>
> In a paper pub
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
I do know that philosopher, Eric Steinhardt, has worked on the concept of
parallel universes, and the notion of some kind of immortality, but I think at
last post, Steinhardt believes that each universe is it's own world line and
thus no information flows be
possibility.
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
To: everything-list
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM
Subject: RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Sounds a lot like
MWI, but asserts that the parallel univers
p
>
> Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
> interactions between, parallel universes.
>
> In a paper published in the prestigious journal *Physical Review X*,
> Professor H
ns of quantum
science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions
between, parallel universes.
In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, Professor
Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics,
and Dr
Le 24-sept.-07, à 18:39, Hal Finney wrote (in part)
> We see the same thing happening all over again in string theory. I
> don't know if you guys are following this at all. String theory is
> going through a crisis as it has turned out in the past few years that
> it does not predict a single un
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:39 AM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New Scientist: Parallel universes make quantum sense
>
> New Scientist has an article on parallel universes:
>
>> Davi
never-never land of substituting math for common sense is disturbing for
simpleminded non-mathematicians, no matter how advanced they want to think.
Multiverse fits, with enough (non-math) imagination, string does not.
This is my way to look at it, I am not ready to defend it. Especially not on
the
New Scientist has an article on parallel universes:
> David Deutsch at the University of Oxford and colleagues have shown
> that key equations of quantum mechanics arise from the mathematics of
> parallel universes. "This work will go down as one of the most important
> de
Le 18-avr.-05, à 04:13, printmodel a écrit :
Well, I was elaborating on Bruno's statement that worlds ("maximal
consistent set of propositions") of a FS are not computable; that even
given
infinite resources (ie. infinite time) it is not possible to generate a
"complete" world. This suggests to me
nd, I thank
you, and I would imagine that there are many more readers like me out there
who remain silent but in awe.
Jeanne
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "printmodel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:
Le 18-avr.-05, à 04:13, printmodel a écrit :
Has anyone on the list experienced personal elevations into
one or more of these parallel universes, I have and would like to
exchange info
mechanically (even allowing infinite resources) generate a world.<
JC: Hmmm..but then if such worlds are
Has anyone on the list experienced personal elevations into
one or more of these parallel universes, I have and would like to
exchange info
mechanically (even allowing infinite resources) generate a world.<
JC: Hmmm..but then if such worlds are not effective objects, how
...snip...
that t
The article in Scientific American gives a number
of 10 raised to 10 to 28 for finding a clone.
This includes replication down to the molecular
level.
But since this level of awareness is beyond human
senses a lower limit can found just
by thinking about taking one of those fancy digital
cam
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131
astro-ph/0302131 [abs, ps(600), other] :
Title: Parallel Universes
Authors: Max Tegmark (Penn)
Comments: 18 pages, 8 figs. A less technical adaptation is scheduled for the
May 2003 issue of Scientific American. Version with full-resolution figs at
this http
Gordon wrote:
>Even if your right Physics found that Comp and the Physical world where
>related through the Philosophy of the Physical hence Objects.
>I agree that our idea of Reality are hard to prove but that mite be just
>down to or Language and nothing to do with the rest of Natures rules.
>
Brett Hall wrote:
>
>There is a difference between saying "The existence of the physical world
>is certain (i.e: we can prove it)" and "I believe that the physical world
>exists".
>This is analagous to our trust in the laws of physics we can hold the
>belief that "Quantum Theory is a true desc
Gordon wrote:
>> You know where I am coming from? Where I am coming from?
>>
>[Gordon]How do you prove the Non Physical?
What is the link? Are you suspecting I got some Natural
Number on the head after which I became a true believer
in Numberland?
Mmh... Brett Hall is right things are the ot
Gordon wrote:
>[Gordon]I think what I was getting at was how Humans get this not Comp
>however I know where you are coming from but I think you have put your
>self into a corner because it is hard to prove your right?
You know where I am coming from? Where I am coming from?
Also, I don't feel
29 matches
Mail list logo
