On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:59:44AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> Ah, never mind, rereading your post I think I see where I misunderstood
> you--you weren't saying "nothing in QM says anything about" the amplitude of
> an eigenvector that you square to get the probability of measuring that
> ei
Hi,
2009/2/7 Jack Mallah
>
> --- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish wrote:
> > So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
>
> Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
> this list. That's why I'm here now - to see if there are any clarifications
>
Brian,
this reply of mine may be out of line usually followed on this list. I have
had discussions on a dozen closely and remotely concerned lists over the
past 17 years about the "thing?" called consciousness, following the yearly
international conferences in Tucson AZ without a universally reach
~Zero probability is an essential property of "existence".
It is not possible to obtain self-identity until/once more then one
instances of self-referencing entity/system "exists". It may be
presented as an unique binary sub-string of minimal length to be found
in huge/(infinite?) binary ring. Th
It seems to me that discussions of quantum immortality often founder on the
fact that people don't make their assumptions about philosophy of mind
explicit, or don't have a well-thought-out position on metaphysical issues
relating to mind in the first place. For example, Jaques, are you assumin
Dear Everything List,
Tegmark mentioned in an article the idea of self-aware structures, SAS.
He wrote that the search for such structures is ongoing, i.e., he
postulated the existence of such structures without giving examples.
I'm wondering if consciousness and self-awareness has been
"mat
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish wrote:
> So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on this
list. That's why I'm here now - to see if there are any clarifications I
should make in it. I intend to mak
2009/2/7 Bruno Marchal
>
>
> Le 06-févr.-09, à 12:06, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2009/2/6 russell standish
> >> He also mentions Tegmark's amoeba croaks argument, which is not
> >> actually an argument against QI, but rather a discussion of what QI
> >> might actually mean. C
Le 06-févr.-09, à 12:06, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> 2009/2/6 russell standish
>> He also mentions Tegmark's amoeba croaks argument, which is not
>> actually an argument against QI, but rather a discussion of what QI
>> might actually mean. Contrary to what some people might think, Q
9 matches
Mail list logo
