Re: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:29 PM, LizR wrote: > On 5 February 2014 14:30, Russell Standish wrote: > >> Of course, you realise there must have been a bunch of entangled >> particles at both ends of the teleport link prepared ahead of time, >> which does involve matter transport! >> > > I thought th

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical >> >> phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 5 February 2014 03:54, Bruno Marchal wrote: My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless to ask why bodies emit utterances referring to the epiphenomenon. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Why? You agree that there is still one way causal link. That is >>> consciousness is a

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 5 February 2014 01:34, David Nyman wrote: > On 4 February 2014 13:57, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> We can refer to our conscious states because the base phenomena on which >> our conscious states supervene cause our vocal cords to move in a particular >> way. But it is wrong to say, except

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 06:42:14PM +1300, LizR wrote: > I don't know about a summary, but the whole book is available here: > > http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf > Thanks Liz. I should also add that I was alluding to the "zero information principle" (Tegmark may call this the mini

Re: What are wavefunctions?

I don't know about a summary, but the whole book is available here: http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf On 5 February 2014 17:58, wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:45:18 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote: >> > I di

Re: Ways to be a Super Position

Well there are cats, alive and dead... (not to mention Wigner, in a state of having seen the aforementioned cat alive / dead...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

Ways to be a Super Position

I was wondering how many different contexts of superposition there might be. For example one vaguely know about is the superposition associated with the double slit experiment, of particles going through one, the other, both and neither slit. Another is the superposition of possible states of a

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:45:18 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the > > information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the > Hubble > > sphe

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

"Moon" is great! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:54:27AM +, chris peck wrote: > Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being computed' thing going on) > Actually more of a virtual reality thing, but I agree it was very well done. I'll add your other suggestions to my list. --

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

you guys should check out Dark City (has a platonic reality isn't really real thing going on) Moon (has a memory/identity/AI thing going on) Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being computed' thing going on) Tarkovsky's Solaris and Stalker are also pretty stunning if you can handle 10 mi

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical > >> phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness, > >> then anything further you ha

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 5 February 2014 14:45, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the > > information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the > Hubble > > sphere, could it be that the i

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical >> phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness, >> then anything further you have to say, such as remarks about how weird >> it sounds, will not negate it. > > >

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote: > I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the > information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble > sphere, could it be that the information in the *multiverse* is > proportional to the volume

Re: UDA and AUDA are the same thesis?

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:36:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:40:59AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA, > >>which is the same thesis, but

Re: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

On 5 February 2014 14:30, Russell Standish wrote: > Of course, you realise there must have been a bunch of entangled > particles at both ends of the teleport link prepared ahead of time, > which does involve matter transport! > I thought that's what the photons were for! That'll teach me to ski

Re: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

They may use photons for convenience, but IIRC, the quantum teleportation protocol just requires bits to be transferred, so they can be converted to electrical pulses, or even as marks on a piece of paper sent through the post. Of course, you realise there must have been a bunch of entangled parti

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 13:31, wrote: > I'm presuming you don't mean blocktime directly predicts...but relativity. > If so, I take your point obviously. > If you meant blocktime directly, I'd love to hear the prediction. > I meant relativity, but that *is *based around the concept of space-time being

Re: Block Universes

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:04:49 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 16:56, > wrote: > >> Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would >> block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while >> their time is being actively blocked in? O

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 13:18, meekerdb wrote: > It's the easiest way to think about SR. And it works for GR too so long > as you avoid closed time-like loops. But GR and QM seem to be > inconsistent, so it's hard to say either one is a good candidate for what's > real. I just think they're very go

Re: Block Universes

On 2/4/2014 4:04 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:31:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/3/2014 9:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: So do you think block time is what is inferred as a reality by each of these space and time variants? You mean "implied by"

Re: Block Universes

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:31:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 2/3/2014 9:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > So do you think block time is what is inferred as a reality by each of > these space and time variants? > > > You mean "implied by"? It doesn't imply anything about which is right

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 12:53, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote: > .. > > > Well, we don't know if *anything* is really real. I wasn't intending to > discuss metaphysics on this thread; if you want to do that, maybe you could > start another one. All I'm arguing is that SR (and to so

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:54:38 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 14:32, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 03 Feb 2014, at 22:40, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:59:36

Re: Block Universes

On 2/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote: .. Well, we don't know if /anything/ is really real. I wasn't intending to discuss metaphysics on this thread; if you want to do that, maybe you could start another one. All I'm arguing is that SR (and to some extent NM) imply a block universe as the simplest e

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 5 February 2014 06:24, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/3/2014 11:49 PM, LizR wrote: > > I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the > information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble > sphere, could it be that the information in the *multiverse* is

Re: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

No, that's fair enough. I was just checking they weren't implying "spooky action at a distance". On 5 February 2014 12:43, Richard Ruquist wrote: > You are correct: " But crucially they've done it for the first time over > the kind of ordinary optical fibre that telecommunications that are in u

Re: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

You are correct: " But crucially they've done it for the first time over the kind of ordinary optical fibre that telecommunications that are in use all over the world." On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR wrote: > "Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that > describes

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:23:45PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: > Russell, thanks for the reply. > My additional points: > > 1. You do not believe in technical progress (scanning SELECT hardcopy-parts > would take seconds). Wrong. It still takes a long time - of the order of minutes per A4 page (5-10

Re: Real science versus interpretations of science

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:29:59 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Ghibbsa, >> >> I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy, >> > > I think that's reasonable but... > > >> but the topics

Re: Real science versus interpretations of science

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy, > I think that's reasonable but... > but the topics treated are what nearly everyone else considers to be > science. > Yeah I agree with t

Re: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

"Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it." It looks like a photon has to make the journey, or am I misunderstanding? (Or isn't a photon matter?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsub

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 12:07, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote: > > You said we don't need a coordinate system at all, we can just use > 4-momenta and 4-intervals - so using those doesn't imply or define a 4D > coordinate system? > > Sure they imply that a 4D coordinate system is po

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:06:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 06:36, meekerdb >wrote: > >> On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary >> aspect of intelligence, >> >> OK. >> and that is function

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:00:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal >wrote: > >> On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something >> >> extra and optional. If you could see that it was log

Re: The Big Bang Never Happened - Eric Lerner

On 5 February 2014 03:29, wrote: > I love that Lerner guy. It looks like he really cares. He thinks > science is bombing, and he's doing his duty as he sees it, to try to save > it. He's clearly insane...but could he be expected to know that. > > Not unless he really is a "learner" ... --

Re: Block Universes

On 2/4/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote: You said we don't need a coordinate system at all, we can just use 4-momenta and 4-intervals - so using those doesn't imply or define a 4D coordinate system? Sure they imply that a 4D coordinate system is possible, in fact many different ones. This is just like

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 5 February 2014 06:36, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary > aspect of intelligence, > > OK. > and that is functionally observable. > > It is not. Leibniz already understood this. You evacuat

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 4 February 2014 23:53, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:25, LizR wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >>> It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something >>> extra and

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 4 February 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something > > extra and optional. If you could see that it was logically entailed by >> certain physical phenomena or computations you wou

Re: UDA and AUDA are the same thesis?

On 5 February 2014 00:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 04 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:40:59AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA, >>> which is the same thesis, but no more using th

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 10:58, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined >>> by future bou

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 10:39, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR wrote: > >> There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by >> future boundary conditions. >> > > You *could* determine the state of any system

Re: Block Universes

On 5 February 2014 10:05, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/31/2014 11:05 PM, LizR wrote: > > There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the > list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the > concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements l

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:37:11 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 20:20, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1

RE: A humble suggestion to the group

Hi Russell and everyone Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I find something I like. My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something in there that could help a wiki construction. As I recall I once a very long time ago started a FAQ

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 17:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:51:02 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 4 February 2014 14:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >>> On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig

Re: Block Universes

On 2/4/2014 1:58 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: There is nothing exotic about the state

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR wrote: > >> There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by >> future boundary conditions. >> > > You *could* determine the state of a

Re: Block Universes

On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by future boundary conditions. You *could* determine the state of any system in quantum theory by futur

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 20:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >>> On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb wr

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

Dear Hal (long time no exchange...) don't even try to transplant progressive ideas onto our embryonic binary kraxlwerk we are so proud of. I have a discussion about 'computing' in the sense how (Latin) "cum" and "putare" may come together, of which - of course - calculating (math, arithmetix, etc.)

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

Russell, thanks for the reply. My additional points: 1. You do not believe in technical progress (scanning SELECT hardcopy-parts would take seconds). 2. You seem to think of 'storing' everything. Not every page is worth 'forever'. Think "errors" - "Obsolescence". 3. Whatever you 'backup' today may

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR wrote: > There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by > future boundary conditions. > You *could* determine the state of any system in quantum theory by future boundary conditions, but what would be exotic is the assumption that nei

Re: Block Universes

On 1/31/2014 11:05 PM, LizR wrote: There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change can't happen in a block universe" (which

Re: Block Universes

There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by future boundary conditions. A photon has a very limited memory and doesn't partake in thermodynamics on its own. The onus is to show why it wouldn't be influenced equally by past and future boundary conditions if time is fundam

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote: >> >> On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote: >>> But more generically speaking, would this in

Re: Unput and Onput

On 5 February 2014 07:45, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2014 9:57 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb wrote: > > I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on >> something other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's >> argument as v

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Because silicon happens >> >> That would explain the "blue screen of death" ! :-) Sorry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Block Universes

On 4 February 2014 23:58, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:55, LizR wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. >>> This can be tested experime

Re: Block Universes

On 4 February 2014 23:45, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, LizR wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and >> Einstein believed in block time. >> > > It isn't a question of belief.

Re: Block Universes

On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote: >> >>> >>> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at >>> the edge of relativity or

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:31:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> I don't think there's anything wrong with

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb wrote: >> >> I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on >>> something other than "it's own terms". I think Craig

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always > establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even > imply block time. > Einstein just says there is no "simultaneity of distant eve

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 04 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 2/2/2014

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 18:45, meekerdb wrote: No a reductio ad absurdum is showing that the premises lead to conclusions > that are absurd, i.e. that it is more likely the premises are false than > that the conclusion is true. This is somewhat a matter of judgement as to > what counts as absurd. A

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > > > Hi Russell and everyone > > > > > > > > > > > My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be > something > > in there th

Re: Real science versus interpretations of science

On 04 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, 1. In my view real science means only the equations that actually work to predict events and the logical framework in which those equations are meaningfully applied. In a more restrictive sense real science is only the ACTUAL computatio

Re: Real science versus interpretations of science

Ghibbsa, I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy, but the topics treated are what nearly everyone else considers to be science. In my view MWI, block universes, wavefunction collapse, etc. none of these are real science, only interpretations of science. Yes, if we un

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even imply block time. What it actually implies is that everything is MOVING in clock time and if things actually move in clock time that is the

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

On 04 Feb 2014, at 14:32, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2014, at 22:40, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:59:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 1/17/2014 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2014, at 19

Re: How to define finite

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > The question was, "How do you define finite." Something is finite if there is no proper subset of it that can be put into a one to one correspondence with the entire thing. Another question is "How do you define God?" I would define the

Re: Unput and Onput

On 2/4/2014 9:57 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on something other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's argument as valid but regard

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > Aside from quotes already mentioned, if you want to educate yourself on > the subject you might try reading the book Bruno mentioned, Pale Yourgrau's > "Einstein and Gödel" which recounts the extensive discussions Einstein had > with Gödel

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:36:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary > aspect of intelligence, > > > OK. > > > and that is functionally observable. > > > It is not. Leibn

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb >wrote: > > I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on >> something other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's >> argument as valid but regard i

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote > The question is why when A gets to the center of the galaxy and stops > That's the key point to remember, A comes to a stop. And during the deceleration process things would no longer be symmetrical, A would see B's clock running Fast but B w

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on something > other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's argument > as valid but regard it as a reductio against saying "yes" to the doctor. I > have criticized it for

Re: How to define finite

On 2/4/2014 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:37, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2014 3:12 PM, LizR wrote: That which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it? Uh Oh! Now you've defined reality as finite. Why? If I stop to believe in 349775010, 349775011, 349775000

Re: How to define finite

On 2/4/2014 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2014 12:23 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent and Bruno here is the main question: what would you identify*"REALITY*" by? Reality is that which we hope to approach OK by reification of the ontology of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2/4/2014 3:46 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless to ask why bodies emit utterances referring to the epiphenomenon. Why? You agree that there is still one way causal link. That is

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary aspect of intelligence, OK. and that is functionally observable. It is not. Leibniz already understood this. You evacuate the mind-body problem. No 3p observation can detect cons

Re: Unput and Onput

On 2/4/2014 7:51 AM, David Nyman wrote: Fine, but then if you genuinely seek to criticise it in its own terms, as you appear to do constantly, then the usual rules of engagement are that you cannot in all reason subsequently quarrel with the stated assumptions unless they lead to a contradiction

Re: Block Universes

On 2/4/2014 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables. But not "hidden variable" in the EPR sense. In the MWI, there are hidden universes, they are not variable, but terms in the universal wave, and we just don't know which terms apply to

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 2/3/2014 11:49 PM, LizR wrote: I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the Hubble sphere, could it be that the information in the /multiverse/ is proportional to the volume of the Hubble sphere?

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > >>> My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless > >>> to > >>> ask why bodi

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Hi Jesse, > > Well, we disagree here > What part of what I said do you disagree with? Do you disagree that in the context of relativity, "sections" of the four-dimensional structure should be taken to refer to simultaneity surfaces? And do

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:51:02 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 14:52, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> Because silicon happens to have

Re: Block Universes

On 4 February 2014 10:14, Bruno Marchal wrote: > But perhaps we should rather think of the frog focus as continuing to be > fundamentally panoptic (i.e. encompassing all the frog perspectives) except > that "down there" the extrinsic simultaneity is intrinsically broken by the > discrete perspect

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless to ask why bodies emit utterances referring to the epiphenomenon. Why? You agree that there is still one way causal lin

Re: Unput and Onput

On 4 February 2014 14:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> Because silicon happens to have been disallowed for biological >>> experience. Silicon and carbon are symbols and sig

Re: Block Universes

Hi Jesse, Well, we disagree here but thinking we know for sure the details of what Einstein believed is probably a lost cause - for me at least, but you of course can always call him up and ask him, since in your view he still actually exists as a block time time line! Let me know when you get

Fwd: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it

This might be of interest -- Forwarded message -- From: richard ruquist Date: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM Subject: Fw: [Swines] Matter itself doesn't make this journey, only the information that describes it To: "yann...@gmail.com" On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:42 AM, ric

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > I agree that the evidence is that Einstein very probably believed in a non > personal God of the universe. But there are those who try to prove he > believed in a personal Biblical God and they do come up with some quotes > they cl

Re: Real science versus interpretations of science

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:33:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > 1. In my view real science means only the equations that actually work to > predict events and the logical framework in which those equations are > meaningfully applied. In a more restrictive sense real science is onl

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:57:26 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, David Nyman > > wrote: > >> On 4 February 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> > Why? You agree that there is still one way causal link. That is >>> > consciousness is a necessary side,

  1   2   >