On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
The question is what do you [blah blah]
DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS
On 17 Feb 2014, at 17:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Hi Richard,
Yes, that is a good example. R-computations, the R-math computations
that actual compute the current information state of the universe,
never have a halting problem because they are a program that always
simply computes the next
On 18 February 2014 02:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/17/2014 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 20:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But it is unambiguous under comp ex hypothesi: i.e. any classically
adequate copy of me is equivalent to me. Under
On 18 February 2014 03:42, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I have over and over. If I count my fingers, I get a number five. That
number cannot reproduce the individual fingers and thumb of my hand. It's
just a metaphor for a certain set of qualities associated with feeling
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:30:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/17/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:32:35PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014 5:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:03:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014
On 17 February 2014 17:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2014, at 14:13, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The whole schema - physics included - would then have to be
considered an epiphenomenon of some inaccessible
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
On 17 February 2014 06:07, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2014 08:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values
On 18 Feb 2014, at 15:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 17:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2014, at 14:13, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The whole schema - physics included - would then have to be
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing
if light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does
NOT travel in a straight line in the accelerating elevator example you
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the
MGA can go through without addressing the counterfactuals, especially since
Maudlin felt he had to address them in his alternative formulation. I
appreciate
On Friday, February 14, 2014 7:47:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Some members of the list have expressed fondness or interest for
cuttlefish, which is
why I post this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgdVVU8tBTQ
The
Would this have happened if Japan had been using subcritical reactors
with thorium fuel?
On 19/02/2014, ghib...@gmail.com ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:01:26 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
Ground water contamination levels at the sampled well site of 54,000Bq/
liter
On 19/02/2014, ghib...@gmail.com ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm over-compensating in the other direction a bit here. Not because I love
the bomb, but if you only knew the power of the dark side.
Come ... join us... Don't be afraid...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In which theory? IIUC, acceleration of an infinitesimal point particle
does not change the curvature of space. And acceleration of a massive
particle only changes the curvature by the amount due to the increased
kinetic energy of
Surely you need something to synchronise the perceptions of different
observers? And I assume external physical reality is the simplest
hypothesis for what that something is?
Not that that ia an argument in its favour, I suppose (doesn't make
testable predictions different from other ontologies).
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the
MGA can go through without addressing the counterfactuals, especially
since
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:50:19 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
Would this have happeed if Japan had been using subcritical reactors
with thorium fuel?
It's worth asking. I don't know the answer but if half the promise were
half true for Thorium it'd be pretty hard to accept the risk
Ghibbsa,
I tend to agree, if nuclear reactors are just built to the high safety
standards they need to be. Quite obviously they should be built to
automatically shut down safely, rather than having melt downs.
In general the aggregate risks of nuclear power are less than comparable
amounts of
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:06:30PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Surely you need something to synchronise the perceptions of different
observers? And I assume external physical reality is the simplest
hypothesis for what that something is?
Not that that ia an argument in its favour, I suppose (doesn't
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:33:19 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I tend to agree, if nuclear reactors are just built to the high safety
standards they need to be. Quite obviously they should be built to
automatically shut down safely, rather than having melt downs.
In
Ah - interesting. Despite being on a short holiday in the Bay of
Islands I have TON with me (and Confederacy of Dunces) so I can
check that out.
As far as the evidence not being in favour of what people think, I
guess that is because they simply assume objective reality, much as
lots of people
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:22:55PM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the
MGA can go
On 2/17/2014 10:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:30:23PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But there is a weaker form. However unlikely one thinks strings or
singularities or
On 2/17/2014 10:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-18 3:35 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/17/2014 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 20:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:44:58 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:28:09PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen
edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:57:21AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In which theory? IIUC, acceleration of an infinitesimal point particle
does not change the curvature of space. And acceleration of a massive
particle only changes the
On 19 February 2014 00:15, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:22:55PM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:19:33PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014 10:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think there's any difference between objectivity and
inter-subujective agreement. I tend to use them interchangably.
Russell, and Liz,
Depends on what we mean by an objective physical reality. Actually an
external objective reality is one of the several most convincing arguments
FOR a computational reality.
An external reality, as opposed to the internal realities of our individual
simulations of that
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:39:59AM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 00:15, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:22:55PM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Feb
On 18 February 2014 17:14, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, that very failure must be strikingly apparent to the functional
actors themselves.
Why do you think that isn't the pathetic fallacy though?
Quite simply because the whole argument is based on the premise that
On 19 February 2014 01:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Anyway, hopefully I can get to that paper so that we can discuss this more.
I look forward to it :)
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:57:04PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Thus the notion of an external reality IS consistent with it being a
computational reality, because it leads directly to it.
Edgar
So you have just painted yourself into a Platonic idealist corner. The
only ontological
Russell, and Brent,
Well, yes and no. At the first level I do claim an objective external
reality. But that that objective external reality consists only of
computationally evolving information continually computing the current
state of the universe. It is not the familiar classical world in
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Which ones? How can unobserved facts exist?
You can observe their consequences without observing the facts. E.g.
millions of people have observed that the sun shines without
understanding or knowing about nuclear fusion.
But maybe
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:16:19 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/15/2014 2:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I find
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:34:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Which ones? How can unobserved facts exist?
You can observe their consequences without observing the facts. E.g.
millions of people have observed that the sun shines without
how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point?
Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the
ground and says:
there's a gold coin buried right there.
Russell says:
no there isn't
They both walk on without looking. And in the subsequent
If it had been a liquid salt type thorium reactor as prototyped at Oak Ridge in the 50's,
it could not have happened. The thorium salt is a solid at room temperature and is not
water soluble.
Brent
On 2/18/2014 2:50 PM, LizR wrote:
Would this have happened if Japan had been using
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:42:48AM +, chris peck wrote:
how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point?
Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the
ground and says:
there's a gold coin buried right there.
Russell says:
no
On 2/18/2014 4:30 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:57:21AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 19/02/2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
In which theory? IIUC, acceleration of an infinitesimal point particle
does not change the curvature of space. And acceleration of a
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing
if light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does
On 2/18/2014 4:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:19:33PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014 10:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think there's any difference between objectivity and
inter-subujective
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, I'm back...
Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
simultaneous in p-time
The only clocks in
2014-02-19 1:21 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/17/2014 10:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-18 3:35 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 2/17/2014 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 20:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But it is
On 18 Feb 2014, at 19:52, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now
then the correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither
Washington NOR Moscow.
Simple calculus
48 matches
Mail list logo
