Hi Bruno
Still waiting for the storm to shut things down.
Numbers are not discussed specifically as far as I can find yet,
in my books on Leibniz. Which probably means that
they are simply numbers, with no ontological status.
Sort of like space or time. Inextended and everywhere.
Numbers are
Hi Bruno Marchal
I still haven't sorted the issue of numbers out.
I suppose I ought to do some research in my Leibniz books.
Aside from that, monads have to be attached to corporeal bodies,
and numbers aren't like that. I find the following unsatisfactory,
but since numbers are like ideas, th
Hi everything-list
If things go as expected, meaning that the power goes off,
I may be offline for a couple of days. Washington DC is
just about to be hit by a hurricane.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/28/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
--
You
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, my error, quanta are in spacetime too.
I'm still adjusting to some of these concepts.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/28/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
R
On 10/28/2012 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Oct 2012, at 17:02, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/27/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 20:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Dear Bruno and Alberto,
I agree some what with both
Hi,
Since the subject has been broached...
/http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0624.pdf
One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution,//
//probability, and scientific confirmation/
by Adrian Kent
(Dated: August 24, 2010)
"There is a compelling intellectual case for exp
On 10/28/2012 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Oct 2012, at 00:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:13:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle,
but I forget what is your problem with the movie-graph/step-8, then
On 10/28/2012 10:23 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> I am not sure if you are being consistent here. Earlier you said you
said you
identify yourself with a stream of thoughts
Obviously.
>If you are identified with a
Bruno, But it seems that the Gleason Theorem assigns probabilities to
the different universes in the multiverse that are not there in
Everett's MWI in the first place. Richard
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2012, at 15:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Well Brun
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Well Bruno,
>
> If the "measure problem" (which I take to be the assignment of
> probabilities) is intrinsic to Everett's MWI, does that not amount to
> negating it? I did not suggest that it negated comp, which is what you
> responded to.
On 10/28/2012 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Oct 2012, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/27/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle, but I f
On 28 Oct 2012, at 00:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:13:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle,
but I forget what is your problem with the movie-graph/step-8, then.
If you find the time, I am please if you can
On 28 Oct 2012, at 11:22, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective by Bas C
Van Fraassen.
p. 40 'Of course the story is apocryphal, that a professional
gambler funded a mathematician to analyze horse-racing, and was
thoroughly unhappy with the report
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:48:29 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term "consistent
> >> with the laws of physics". It means that when you decide to play tennis
> the
>
Very interesting. I think that in the long run, we will come back to
being bacteria, but with cables, with ultra redundant coding of our
humanity. Those bacteria seems to already do the cables. Why?
Nice discovery.
Bruno
On 27 Oct 2012, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote:
UH OH! We may have to consi
On 27 Oct 2012, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/27/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323
principle, but I forget what is your problem with the movi
On 27 Oct 2012, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> your eyes are sending signals to your brain of the White House
and not of the Kremlin, and there is nothing more profound about it.
> But the eyes of the copy get also the signals from Moscow.
Yes,
On 27 Oct 2012, at 17:49, John Mikes wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
> We are atoms,
On 27 Oct 2012, at 17:02, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/27/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 20:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Dear Bruno and Alberto,
I agree some what with both of you. As to the idea of a
"genetic
algorit
From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective by Bas C Van
Fraassen.
p. 40 'Of course the story is apocryphal, that a professional gambler
funded a mathematician to analyze horse-racing, and was thoroughly
unhappy with the report that began "Let each horse be a perfect sphere,
roll
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term "consistent
>> with the laws of physics". It means that when you decide to play tennis the
>> neurons in your brain will depolarise because of the ionic gradients,
>
>
> If you ca
21 matches
Mail list logo
