> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:22, Peter Sas wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> It is not my intention to presuppose a physical reality independent of
> consciousness. Very simply put, I start with absolute (prereflective)
> self-awareness (ASA) as explanatory primitive
> On 21 Aug 2018, at 11:14, Peter Sas wrote:
>
> Might be of interest:
>
> https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html
It is a bit long, and I will read it at ease. I certainly can compare this
favourably with Pl
Might be of interest:
https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro
Two apparently distinct ontological distinctions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeInd vs
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeSet
After the development of set theory, however, a distinction of the
scholastics between intension, of sets that were circumscribed by
Ontological status is always within some model we have created. So one can created models
in which species are defined extenstionally and create different models in which they are
defined intensionally. So what? They are both our creations to help understand the
world. Does one work better?
It seems biologists (and philosophers of biology) think that Kitcher's
motivation for asserting that species are sets is to allow spatiotemporally
unrestricted groups of organisms to form species. That motivation, however,
is not substantiated by biological theory or practice. Species as sets
(see
Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed
thoughts on dark energy and matter
1) Dark matter is potentially energy via E= mc^2.
Dark energy is already energy.
Regular matter is also potentially energy via E = mc^2
2) So everything is energy or potentially energy.
3) It is known
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?
For the same reason computers can selectively
On 16 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts
...@verizon.net
wrote:
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?
For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories,
run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in
basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional
execution
On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Saying
that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you
don't
claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is
only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious
god
that plants false
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?
Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
by Roger Clough
Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the brain
is a monad and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived
(Leibniz uses the word reflected
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?
For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories,
run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in
basic computer science by any
On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?
For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories,
run some algorithms and not others and so
Hi Richard,
That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts
appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves
through some unseen intelligence).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could
with the supernatural
and the wealth of information I suspect it contains, like Platonia..
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts
appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves
: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 09:49:09
Subject: Re: On thoughts appearing out of nowhere
Roger,
Well, regarding human consciousness,
I believe that our subsconscious contains an invisible intelligence
that seems to provide answers that we cannot figure out consciously.
Call it the soul if you
What is the electron configuration ?
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
==.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
#
A New Limit on Photon Mass.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
===.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
Electron’s fine structure constant.
=.
It is interesting to understand the Sommerfeld formula:
a= e^2 / h*c, where {a} is fine structure constant: 1/137
Feynman expressed (a ) quantity as
‘ by the god given damnation to all physicists ‘.
But the fine structure constant is not
On May 5, 12:17 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
A crazy thoughts about structure of Electron.
=.
Electron isn’t a point.
Electron has a geometrical form.
Maybe not. Maybe we infer geometry because of measurement using
geometric instruments.
Electron’s geometrical form
A crazy thoughts about structure of Electron.
=.
Electron isn’t a point.
Electron has a geometrical form.
Electron’s geometrical form isn’t static, isn’t firm.
Electron’s geometrical form can be changed by his own inner spin.
Electron’s own inner spin can be described with three ( 3 ) formulas
is no.
will there be different solution at different environments ?
There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through
interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the
situation
that you are describing.
1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts
don't
affect our
)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't
affect our environment..?
in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it
doesn't exist at all ?
2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles in brain) affect the
solution ?
2.consider an artificial brain fed
through
interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the
situation
that you are describing.
1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't
affect our environment..?
You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a
person is isolated from
environments ?
There is no reason. The environment can only play a role through
interaction, or interference, but this will not occur in the
situation
that you are describing.
1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't
affect our environment..?
You are right
?that our thoughts don't
affect our environment..?
You are right. But only in the setting that you describe, where a
person is isolated from the environment.
This seems to me rather obvious, so I might be missing something.
in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting
by saying it does not occur in the situation i am describing..so it
does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our
thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is
that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing
becomes
selvakr1...@gmail.com
by saying it does not occur in the situation i am describing..so it
does occur when our sense are present.in that case,it implies that our
thoughts are affecting the environment through our senses.now how is
that possible?senses are unidirectional. the situation i am describing
have experienced..
so
if no input is given, how can the mind can interract with it.
it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not
the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment.
And the mind act on the environment through the body. I don't know of any
with it.
it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not
the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment.
And the mind act on the environment through the body. I don't know of any
instance of deincarnate mind which would be the only way not to interract
On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote:
it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and not
the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical environment.
Where are these proofs published?
Brent
All those canes, braces and crutches, and not a single glass eye,
wooden
On 20.06.2011 21:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote:
it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and
not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical
environment.
Where are these proofs published?
I was trying to understand what
On 6/20/2011 12:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.06.2011 21:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote:
it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and
not the actions due to those thoughts)affect our physical
environment.
Where are these proofs
Two words: sharpshooter fallacy.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 20.06.2011 21:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/20/2011 11:05 AM, selva wrote:
it is proved in noetic science that our thoughts(only thoughts and
not the actions due to those
Hi selva,
On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:10, selva wrote:
1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut
down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his
environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around
him, ) ,affects his solution ?
Assuming
, or interference, but this will not occur in the situation
that you are describing.
1)then the converse should also be true right?that our thoughts don't
affect our environment..?
in that case,what about noetic sciences ? Are you suggesting it
doesn't exist at all ?
2)will gravity(acceleration of the particles
hi everyone,
1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut
down and now he is about to find a solution for a problem. Does his
environment (or rather,positions of atoms/energy around
him, ) ,affects his solution ?
will there be different solution at different environments ?
-Original Message-
From: selva selvakr1...@gmail.com
Sent: June 17, 2011 3:10 PM
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: thoughts ?
hi everyone,
1.consider a person cut off from all his senses,all his 5 senses shut
down and now he is about to find a solution
Bruno:
Dur to financial considerations I will wait for the fifth edition
to come out.
On Feb 28, 6:11 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:34, ronaldheld wrote:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I really
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:34, ronaldheld wrote:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I really don't know. My favorite edition is the first one, because
there is a nice appendix with a proof of the consistency of arithmetic
by transfinite
Bruno:
The fifth edition of Mendelson's book is due out in August;is it
worth waiting for?
I will take a look at some of the links on Podnieks page.
Ronald
On Feb 26, 11:17 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Feb 2009, at 16:40, ronaldheld
On 23 Feb 2009, at 16:40, ronaldheld wrote:
Perhaps this paper would be of interest:
Deterministic multivalued logic scheme for information processing and
routing in the brain(arxiv.org/abs/0902.2033)?
Speaking of logic, even though I am not starting from zero,and given
that it is not my
Perhaps this paper would be of interest:
Deterministic multivalued logic scheme for information processing and
routing in the brain(arxiv.org/abs/0902.2033)?
Speaking of logic, even though I am not starting from zero,and given
that it is not my full time profession, which papers/book should be
Le 13-juil.-07, à 18:42, David Nyman a écrit :
On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless
you
are not lobian; even lobian non-machine cannot name it).
Perish the thought. But I was referring to 'first person
On 13/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed.
Observed in what sense? Consciously, by a conscious being? Or decoherred
into a quasi-classical state, as in QM? Reflexive would seem to
Le 12-juil.-07, à 16:27, David Nyman a écrit :
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing
On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of
the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!)
that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect
of itself.
Yes, and
Le 13-juil.-07, à 17:02, David Nyman a écrit :
But since the One is not
what most people would consider a person (let alone a god), another
term would be better. I wonder what?
I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless you
are not lobian; even lobian
On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless you
are not lobian; even lobian non-machine cannot name it).
Perish the thought. But I was referring to 'first person primacy',
not 'the One'. Maybe something like the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-juil.-07, à 16:27, David Nyman a écrit :
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal
talk, because it is a tricky technical terms
I tend to agree with what Brent said.
Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing with him myself. But I
nevertheless feel, from their
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed. The tree falling unobserved in the
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed.
Observed
David Nyman skrev:
On 11/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(quite contrary to the premise of the everything-list, but one that I'm glad to entertain).
For what it's worth, I really don't see that this is necessarily
contrary to the premise of this list.
On 11/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One exemple of a possible world is that GoL-universe, of which there is a
picture of on the Wikipedia page.
One interesting thing about this particular GoL-universe is that it is
finite, the time goes in a circle in that universe.
On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than
some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate.
Doesn't this strike you as perhaps consistent
David Nyman wrote:
On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than
some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate.
Doesn't this strike you
On 10/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I draw a complete blank when I read your use of the word reflexive. What
exactly do you mean? How would you distinguish reflexive from non-reflexive
existence? Do numbers exist reflexively? Do somethiings exist
non-reflexively? What
David Nyman wrote:
On 10/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I draw a complete blank when I read your use of the word reflexive. What
exactly do you mean? How would you distinguish reflexive from non-reflexive
existence? Do numbers exist reflexively? Do somethiings exist
On 11/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Frankly, I'd be happy to concur. My account was to some extent a
recapitulation of the intuitive process by which I reached a view of
this entailment
Le 06-juil.-07, à 19:24, David Nyman a écrit :
On 06/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure that numbers are real in the sense that I am real,
unless you are talking of the third person I. Then you are as real
as your (unknown) Godel-number.
In general, when people
On 08/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand how you could go automatically from a postulate to
something real. That can happens, but here the comp hyp puts non
trivial restrictions: when that happens, we cannot be sure it happens.
Hmm Well, if you 'postulate'
On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, when people use the word I they refer to their first
person, or to first person plural feature of their physical body. It
is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable
first person view (making the
Le 05-juil.-07, à 17:31, David Nyman a écrit :
On 05/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: OK. I would insist that the comp project (extract physics from
comp)
is really just a comp obligation. This is what is supposed to be shown
by the UDA (+ MOVIE-GRAPH). Are you OK with
On 06/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure that numbers are real in the sense that I am real,
unless you are talking of the third person I. Then you are as real
as your (unknown) Godel-number.
In general, when people use the word I they refer to their first
person, or
David Nyman skrev:
You're right, we must distinguish zombies. The kind I have in mind
are the kind that Torgny proposes, where 'everything is the same' as
for a human, except that 'there's nothing it is like' to be such a
person. My key point is that this must become incoherent in the face
On 06/07/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the GoL-universe will not stop, it will continue for ever. The
rules for this GoL-universe makes it possible to compute all future
situations. It is this that is important. This GoL-universe is not
dependent of the A-Universe.
On 05/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: OK. I would insist that the comp project (extract physics from comp)
is really just a comp obligation. This is what is supposed to be shown
by the UDA (+ MOVIE-GRAPH). Are you OK with this. It *is*
counterintuitive.
DN: I believe so -
Le 02-juil.-07, à 18:12, David Nyman a écrit :
After very kindly concurring with bits of my recent posts, Bruno
nonetheless quite reasonably questioned whether I followed his way of
proceeding. Having read the UDA carefully, I would say that in a
'grandmotherly' way I do, although not
On 03/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: BTW I have discovered that the book edited by Martin Davis The
undecidable has been republished in 2004 by Dover.
DN: I've just ordered it from Amazon.
BM: Many Sc. fiction book go through such experience, and the book Mind's
I (ed. by
After very kindly concurring with bits of my recent posts, Bruno
nonetheless quite reasonably questioned whether I followed his way of
proceeding. Having read the UDA carefully, I would say that in a
'grandmotherly' way I do, although not remotely at his technical
level. But I had been doing
Le 13-août-06, à 12:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
I know it looks counterintuitive, but an AI can know which computer
is
running and how many they are. It is a consequence of comp, and the
UDA
shows why. The answer is:
the computer which is running are
Russell Standish writes:
Precisely my point!
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:42:04AM -0700, 1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
By increasing the measure locally in our universe, are you making no
difference, or only a
small amount of difference to the measure overall in
Russell Standish writes:
Precisely my point!
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:42:04AM -0700, 1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
By increasing the measure locally in our universe, are you making no
difference, or only a
small amount of difference to the measure overall in
Bruno Marchal writes:
I know it looks counterintuitive, but an AI can know which computer is
running and how many they are. It is a consequence of comp, and the
UDA
shows why. The answer is:
the computer which is running are the relative universal number which
exist in
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP):
...a controlled
experiment in which measure can be turned up and down leaving
everything else
the same, such as having an AI running on several computers in
perfect
lockstep.
I think that the idea that a lower measure OM will appear more
Le 10-août-06, à 14:16, Stathis Papaioannou wrote :
Bruno: I am not sure I understand. All real number exist, for
example, and it
is the reason why we can put a measure on it. All computations exist
(this is equivalent with arithmetical realism) yet some are or at
least
could be
Le 08-août-06, à 15:54, W. C. a écrit :
From: Bruno Marchal
...
I just said you were deadly wrong here, but rereading your post I
find it
somehow ambiguous.
Let me comment anyway.
Human classical teleportation, although possible in principle, will
not be
possible in our life time
WC writes:
Classical teleportation cannot copy something exact to the quantum level,
but rather involves making a close enough copy. It is obvious, I think,
that this is theoretically possible, but it is not immediately obvious how
good the copy of a person would have to be (what Bruno
From: W. C.
From: Bruno Marchal
...
Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like observing
your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the path of an
electron.
...
Any microscope (optical or electron type)? What's the min. magnification
resolution to see it?
I
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 07-août-06, à 15:52, W. C. a écrit :
From: Bruno Marchal
...
Comp says that there is a level of description of yourself such that
you
survive through an emulation done at that level. But the UD will
simulate
not only that level but all level belows.
Le Mardi 8 Août 2006 08:00, W. C. a écrit :
Can you tell me why?
Because you are bad faith and don't read correctly what others tell you.
If you have some more stupid questions like this, don't hesitate and go
continue polluting the mailing list.
Quentin
Le 08-août-06, à 10:10, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Le Mardi 8 Août 2006 08:00, W. C. a écrit :
Can you tell me why?
Because you are bad faith and don't read correctly what others tell
you.
If you have some more stupid questions like this, don't hesitate and go
continue polluting the
Le 08-août-06, à 05:49, W. C. a écrit :
From: Stathis Papaioannou
...
Classical teleportation cannot copy something exact to the quantum
level,
but rather involves making a close enough copy. It is obvious, I
think,
that this is theoretically possible, but it is not immediately
Le 08-août-06, à 08:00, W. C. a écrit :
But I still can't see that matter is the result of a sum on an
infinity
of interfering computations.
Can you tell me why?
My opinion here is that you should (re)read the FOR book. We do have
empirical reasons (quantum mechanics) that physical
Le 08-août-06, à 05:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP):
...a controlled
experiment in which measure can be turned up and down leaving
everything else
the same, such as having an AI running on several computers in
perfect
lockstep.
I think that the
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:11:19PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Is it still correct to say that a computation running on two physical
computers (that is, what
we think of as physical computers, whatever the underlying reality may be)
has almost twice
the measure as it would have
Russell Standish writes:
Is it still correct to say that a computation running on two physical
computers (that is, what
we think of as physical computers, whatever the underlying reality may be)
has almost twice
the measure as it would have if it were running on one computer?
From: Bruno Marchal
...
I just said you were deadly wrong here, but rereading your post I find it
somehow ambiguous.
Let me comment anyway.
Human classical teleportation, although possible in principle, will not be
possible in our life time (except for those who will succeed in some lucky
Le 08-août-06, à 08:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like
observing
your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the path of an
electron.
Could you say more about this? If you examine an object more and more
closely you
W. C. wrote:
Thanks for the info. although I still don't think substitution level exists.
If teleportation of human beings is real (I hope I can see it in my life),
I think all biggest questions (such as consciousness, soul? Creator? the
origin of the universe, meaning of life ... etc.)
of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-août-06, à 08:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like
observing
your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the path of an
electron.
Could you say more about this? If you examine an object
Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion here is that you should (re)read the FOR book. We do have
empirical reasons (quantum mechanics) that physical reality is the
result of interfering computable waves.
Quantum weirdness is entirely compatible with
materialism-contingency-empiricism.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-août-06, à 05:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP):
...a controlled
experiment in which measure can be turned up and down leaving
everything else
the same, such as having an AI running on several computers in
perfect
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
By increasing the measure locally in our universe, are you making no
difference, or only a
small amount of difference to the measure overall in Platonia?
You can't make a difference in Platonia. There is no time there,
no change, and no causality.
Precisely my point!
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:42:04AM -0700, 1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
By increasing the measure locally in our universe, are you making no
difference, or only a
small amount of difference to the measure overall in Platonia?
You can't make a
: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
Someone called me to task for this posting (I forget who, and I've
lost the posting now). I tried to formulate the notion I expressed
here more precisely, and failed! So I never responded.
What I had in mind was that future observer
Le 07-août-06, à 01:44, W. C. a écrit :
From: Bruno Marchal
...
But it is easy to explain that this is already a simple consequence
of
comp. Any piece of matter is the result of a sum on an infinity of
interfering computations: there is no reason to expect this to be
clonable without
From: Bruno Marchal
...
Comp says that there is a level of description of yourself such that you
survive through an emulation done at that level. But the UD will simulate
not only that level but all level belows. So comp makes the following
prediction: if you look at yourself or at you
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
