How does this compare with Einstein´s discovery that there is no moment that
is the same NOW for everyone?
LN
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] För Kim Jones
Skickat: den 2 januari 2009 04:01
Till: Everything List
On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
The present moment in quantum cosmology: challenges to the arguments
for the elimination of time
Authors: Lee Smolin
(Submitted on 29 Apr 2001)
Abstract: Barbour, Hawking, Misner and others have argued that time
cannot play an essential
Hal,
I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation
of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected!
I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration
by incompleteness... depending on exactly how things are defined.
Enumeration by
Hi Günther,
On 01 Jan 2009, at 23:58, Günther Greindl wrote:
Bruno,
I have also wanted to ask how you come to 2^aleph_zero
Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the
universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but
also on all non interacting
On 02 Jan 2009, at 16:01, Abram Demski wrote:
Hal,
I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation
of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected!
I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration
by incompleteness... depending on
Bruno,
Interesting point, but if we are starting at nothing rather than PA,
we don't have provability logic so we can't do that! How can we tell
if an *arbitrary* set of axioms is incomplete?
This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions studied
in the literature, like: PA,
If I understand the standard MWI right (with my layman brain) Abram
Demski's view of time is very much in accordance with it, except that
time should be looked at simply as a fourth space dimension. A bird's
eye view on the whole universe (= all it's actualized worlds) would
be like a static
7 matches
Mail list logo
