David Deutsch interview

Interview of physicist David Deutsch by science journalist John Horgan http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/3 -- 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 unsubscri

Re: Why UDA proves nothing

OK, well first of all let me retract any ad hominem remarks that may have offended you. Call it a rhetorical flourish! I apologise. There are clearly some theories which require a profound amount of dedicated learning to understand - such as QFT. I majored in History and Philosophy of Science and w

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM ex

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. >> I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible >> theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow

Re: Bruno List continued

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> Do you agree or don't you that the observable (or public, or third >> person) behaviour of neurons can be entirely explained in terms of a >> chain of physical events? > > No, nothing can be *entirely* explained in terms of a chain of > phy

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really what

Re: Why UDA proves nothing

On 9/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, it would generate every possible information state, and would therefore create me and all my possible futures, but these 'pictures' would have no coherence, would immediately dissolve back into the static they emerged from. The point is that IF w

David Eagleman on CHOICE

An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an "observer moment". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1Q&NR=1 Brent -- 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.c

Re: Is this really true?

On 9/25/2011 12:35 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb > wrote: "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all." A few people on this list have repeated this sentiment, but I wonder if it is really so. If there wer

Re: Why UDA proves nothing

On Sep 24, 10:20 pm, Pierz wrote: > > Let's take a look at the UD. Obviously this is not an 'intelligent' > device, beyond the intelligence implicit in the very simple base > algorithm. It just runs every possible computer program. Random > computer programs are made of and produce *static*, they

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 25 Sep 2011, at 09:05, Roger Granet wrote: Bruno, Hi. >Roger: When you say "Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons", this was the very point I was making. I don't >think there can exist mathematical truths in some platonic realm somewhere. They're in the mind, which is a

Re: Why UDA proves nothing

On 25 Sep 2011, at 04:20, Pierz wrote: OK, so I've read the UDA and I 'get' it, Wow. Nice! but at the moment I simply can't accept that it is anything like a 'proof'. Hmm... (Then you should not say "I get it", but "I don't get it"). A proof is only something presented as a proof. You

Re: Is this really true?

Jason: two 'naive' replies to your (excellent in it's riet) post: -* I interject in bold Italics* *John M * On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all." >> >> > A few

Re: Is this really true?

On Sep 25, 3:35 am, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all." > > A few people on this list have repeated this sentiment, but I wonder if it > is really so.  If there were an oracle that could provid

Re: Bruno List continued

final part On Sep 23, 3:17 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > We are machines and we can > > feel, therefore machines can feel. Jet engines are machines they > > can > > fly at 30,000 feet, therefore we can fly at 30,000 feet. >

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On 24 Sep 2011, at 20:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value whi

Is this really true?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all." > > A few people on this list have repeated this sentiment, but I wonder if it is really so. If there were an oracle that could provide an explanation for any question asked of it

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Roger Granet wrote: > Jason, > > >Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers? If so I ask > you why should these very large numbers exist if >they require a physical > basis? There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue of their > s

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Bruno,     Hi.   >Roger:  When you say "Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons", this was >the very point I was making.  I don't >think there can exist mathematical >truths in some platonic realm somewhere.  They're in the mind, which is a >physical >thing, >This is something you assume