Re: time sampling

Scientists are interested in why the auditory cortex can act like an iPOD. . .<> Seems when you hear the music, even in your mind--it takes you back to the first time you heard that song. Moon Riiver. . . Ahem. In their book *Margins of Reality*

Re: Plaga

At 06:58 PM 5/24/2005, rmiller wrote: In a recent post (5/24) I wrote. . . I would suggest re Plaga or anyone else discussed here, it's not the time spent in a particular academic trench that makes the idea great, it's the quality of the insight. As luck, coincidence or a wide specious present

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

aet.radal ssg wrote: You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming. To me, "brainstorming" just means any creative attempt to come up with new tentative speculations about solutions to a problem. Since Einstein's ideas cannot possibly have been anything but ten

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

Saibal Mitra wrote: Quoting Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: > > >One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it > >solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all > >possible observer moments on

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

I'll answer your question (at the risk of incurring your wrath):  those people are real in the sense that his brain is  devoting processing power to creating the mental image of the individual, and everything related to this individual's personality.  So even though the person in his head isn't

Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle

Russell, You are right, Tipler basically makes that argument. I just don't know if he or anyone couched it in terms of the anthropic principle in explaining what we observe and how we are here to observe it. I agree that Tipler gets a little too speculative in his book, but I actually belie

Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle

Dear Russell and Friends, Having given a talk on this book with my friend David Woolsey, I would agree with you and add that it seems that Tipler has, as many others in the scientific community and they grow long in the tooth, realized the reality of their own mortality and have tried to us

Re: Plaga

Ha, ha. - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Plaga Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:50:01 +0200 > > Bruno was quoting another Aet from a parallel world :) > > > > Quoting Eugen Leitl : > > > > > If you expect to be quoted correctly, s

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

Thanks  for the repost. As far as the suicide paradox goes, I'd argue that it's not a paradox. Regardless of how he measures it, if there is a possible alternative, then that alternative exits in a parallel world. The outcome is inconsequential. I see no difference between that and the Schroedinger

Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle

Sounds to me what Tipler was arguing in "Physics of Immortality". Whilst the "Omega Point Theory" developed in that book is interesting and fun, most of the rest of the book is rubbish. Cheers On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:35:03PM -0400, danny mayes wrote: > to the effect that not only must the uni

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming. You're the one that called the ideas discussed here often as "half-formed". The problem I used to have (I'm too busy to even give darn anymore) is when ideas are put out that don't seem to any thought behind them, prior t

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:54:03PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote: > > * Since the White Rabbit^** argument implicitly assumes a measure, as it > stands it can't be definitive. > > * But the arbitrariness of the measure itself becomes the main argument > against the everything thesis, since the mai

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

- Original Message - From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: EverythingList Sent: 26 May 2005 11:20 Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark > > On Thu, 26 May 2005, Alastair Malcolm wrote: > > > An example occurs which might be of help. Let us sa

RE: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Brent Meeker wrote: I agree with all you say. But note that the case of finite sets is not really any different. You still have to define a measure. It may seem that there is one, compelling, natural measure - but that's just Laplace's principle of indifference applied

RE: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

>-Original Message- >From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:21 AM >To: Alastair Malcolm >Cc: EverythingList >Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark > > > >On Thu, 26 May 2005, Alastair Malcolm wrote: > >> An example occurs which might be of help. Let

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

The original posting about this dates back from the beginning of this list. I just invoked this in this thread to argue why one should consider observer moments (identical ones considered as the same) as fundamental concepts. The suicide paradox I was referring to is just Tegmark's thought expe

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

Paddy Leahy writes: > For the continuum you can restore order by specifying a measure which just > *defines* what fraction of real numbers between 0 & 1 you consider to lie > in any interval. For instance the obvious uniform measure is that there > are the same number between 0.1 and 0.2 as betw

Re: Plaga

Bruno was quoting another Aet from a parallel world :) Quoting Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If you expect to be quoted correctly, stop posting HTML-only. > > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 08:45:34AM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote: > > HEY! BRUNO - I, (aet) didn't say that. Someone else did. I w

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

Quoting Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: > > >One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it > >solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all > >possible observer moments on which a measure is defin

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

aet.radal ssg wrote: Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. >The "half-formed idea" is what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when the storm is >over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of rain, the storm co

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

For some reason I didn't get the original post about the suicide paradox, so if someone could resend it, sans any "everything" computer lingo, I would appreciate it. The subject of the thread - "Many Pasts? - Not according to QM"  taken on its face seems false, at least from the standard MWI model.

Re: Plaga

If you expect to be quoted correctly, stop posting HTML-only. On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 08:45:34AM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote: > HEY! BRUNO - I, (aet) didn't say that. Someone else did. I was > quoting them. If you're going to quote somebody, I suggest you get it > right.- Original Message --

Re: Plaga

- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Plaga Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:37:54 -0400 > > aet.radal ssg wrote: > > > From the initial page from the included link to the archive: "I'm > > no physicist so I don't

Re: Plaga

HEY! BRUNO - I, (aet) didn't say that. Someone else did. I was quoting them. If you're going to quote somebody, I suggest you get it right.- Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "aet.radal ssg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: Plaga Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:40:21

RE: Plaga

You're welcome, Lee. - Original Message - From: "Lee Corbin" To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Plaga Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:04:19 -0700 > > I could not find who suggested Plaga's paper recently, but > thanks to whoever it was. Whether Plaga is right or wrong, > his in

Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

- Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:36:51 -0400 > > "aet.radal ssg" wrote: > > >> From: "Jesse Mazer"  > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-li

RE: Sociological approach

Lee Corbin writes: Richard writes > >How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of > >roulette? > And there are people who are good at it. Everyone calls them "lucky" which > really doesn't explain much. Some of us routinely choose the wrong queue, > others get the correct

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote: One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all possible observer moments on which a measure is defined (which can be calculated in principle using the laws of ph

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:20:35AM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote: > > A measure like this works for the continuum but not for the naturals > because you can map the continuum onto a finite segment of the real line. > In m6511 Russell Standish describes how a measure can be applied to the > naturals

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Alastair Malcolm wrote: An example occurs which might be of help. Let us say that the physics of the universe is such that in the Milky Way galaxy, carbon-based SAS's outnumber silicon-based SAS's by a trillion to one. Wouldn't we say that the inhabitants of that galaxy a

Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark

> - Original Message - > From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: EverythingList > Sent: 24 May 2005 22:10 > Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark > . >[Patrick:] > > This is very reminiscent of Lewis' argument. Have you read his book? IIRC >