2014-02-19 0:22 GMT+01:00 David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com:
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
On 19 February 2014 17:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
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
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:40:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen 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 this
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the last questions to proceed. Any
problem?
I give the correction of the last exercise.
On 14 Feb 2014, at 19:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
On 13 Feb 2014, at 22:23, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 07:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 19 February 2014 13:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Acceleration of a point particle doesn't cause light crossing the
particle to bend (because it's a point) but accel of a larger object
does because light takes time to cross the object.
I'm sure the particle size is
Sorry I should have read on before making that last post.
It would appear that acceleration alone doesn't curve space, the only
curvature involved is that due to the mass/energy involved.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
They may never have provided any electricity in the first place. I have read,
at length, some nuclear engineering papers, concerning accelerator driven
reactors, subcritical thorium, and bluntly, they are like fusion reactors, they
don't exist. There is research in a couple of places like the
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:07:07 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:42:48 PM UTC-5, 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:
Russell,
No, I have not painted myself into any corner.
Second, I reject all the labels you use, and most of the terminology which
is loaded with other labels. Labels are usually excuses not to consider the
actual theory, and not to have to actually think
You are trying to view my theory
Russell, Brent, Jesse, et al,
The increased kinetic energy of the particle is not due to its
acceleration but to its relative velocity to some observer. Mass also
increases with relative velocity, but that apparent increase in mass is
only with respect to some observer the motion is relative
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:02:40 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 17:14, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Moreover, that very failure must be strikingly apparent to the functional
actors themselves.
Why do you think that isn't the pathetic
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy is
incomplete. The primary sequence of DNA is right, but the tertiary protein
folding
The curvature of spacetime is understood in a coordinate-invariant way, in
terms of the proper time and proper length along paths through spacetime,
so it doesn't depend at all on what coordinate system you use to describe
things. Physicists do sometimes talk about the curvature of space
distinct
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:; wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
And should you not go on to say that biochemistry is an epiphenomenon of
physics and physics is an epiphenomenon of
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm talking about the ontology of the nature of any possible awareness
in any possible universe.
I'm not really sure what distinction you're
On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to
consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the situation
where biochemistry necessarily leads to life.
OK, I think you're making a
On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy
is
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36:31 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to
consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm talking about the ontology of the nature of any possible
On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, I have not painted myself into any corner.
Second, I reject all the labels you use, and most of the terminology
which is loaded with other labels. Labels are usually excuses not to
consider the actual theory, and not to have to
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
You should stop talking about space, it's 4D spacetime; but yes it's
curved, although if you were inside that sealed elevator you couldn't tell
if the curvature was caused by rockets accelerating the elevator in deep
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ghib...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Thursday, February 13,
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of
biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
And should you not go on to say that biochemistry is an
epiphenomenon of
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:38 AM UTC, 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
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:46:40 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:45:19 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of
*ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
*To:*
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no sense in which an observer in an accelerating elevator in
the flat spacetime of special relativity could correctly conclude that
spacetime has any curvature
What you say is true but only according to
If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest
computer-assisted proof. It is as large as the entire content of Wikipedia,
making it unlikely that will ever be checked by a human being.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but specifically ask me not to use logic
in doing so. No can do.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
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
Ghibbsa and Russell,
There can be absolutely no doubt of an external reality independent of
humans. As I said, all of common sense, and all of science makes this
fundamental assumption.
We have eyes, and other sense organs, so we can sense that external
reality. Do you deny we have eyes? If
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but
But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ? I
guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it should
be possible to devise two independent different proof checker... if these
proof checker are smaller than the proof itself (and they should be),
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:31:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa and Russell,
There can be absolutely no doubt of an external reality independent of
humans. As I said, all of common sense, and all of science makes this
fundamental assumption.
We have eyes, and other sense
On 19 February 2014 17:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm
Another silly question:
Bruno and List: how on Earth can we talk aboput TOE? (unless we restrict it
to the presently knowable inventory
of physically identified E).- TOE was so different in the past and
assumably: will be so diffeent later on.
Your *mind* (or: being conscious?) begs the question
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:31:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa and Russell,
There can be absolutely no doubt of an external reality independent of
humans. As I said, all of common sense, and all of science makes this
fundamental assumption.
It might be common sense, but I don't
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 17:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:28:15 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:45:19 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of
*ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
*To:*
Hi Quentin
They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll
try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and
explanation from your part.
So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what
we will do
You are looking at a geiger counter pointing at a radioactive source. On
average, it clicks about once every other second. Do you expect to hear it
click in the next second?
What is wrong with the above question? It seems to me exactly equivalent in
probability terms to do you expect to see
On 20 February 2014 00:20, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
They may never have provided any electricity in the first place. I have
read, at length, some nuclear engineering papers, concerning accelerator
driven reactors, subcritical thorium, and bluntly, they are like fusion
reactors, they don't
On 20 February 2014 08:31, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Ghibbsa and Russell,
There can be absolutely no doubt of an external reality independent of
humans. As I said, all of common sense, and all of science makes this
fundamental assumption.
We have eyes, and other sense organs,
On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
On 2/18/2014 5:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On 2/18/2014 7:10 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On 2/18/2014 8:34 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:31PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
I think we're talking past one another. You're talking about
ontology as the ur-stuff that's really real. I'm talking about the
stuff that is assumed as fundamental in a theory.
Brent
Yes, to me an ontology is a statement about
On 2/19/2014 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:31PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
I think we're talking past one another. You're talking about
ontology as the ur-stuff that's really real. I'm talking about the
stuff that is assumed as fundamental in a theory.
Brent
As usual the important thing is to decide what the words mean before the
argument I mean discussion starts!
--
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
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:53:23PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:31PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
I think we're talking past one another. You're talking about
ontology as the ur-stuff that's really real. I'm talking about the
The problem is the same with mwi. Your comment here is simply bad faith,
guess I can't expect discussion. So long then.
Le 20 févr. 2014 02:57, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com a écrit :
Hi Quentin
*They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked.
So I'll try one
Your argument feels like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJ4ojtHJ4M
Also, the ** are just to emphasize not to denote a difference in the
meaning of you... the you in the question is always the guy in front of the
button, totally unique with no doppelganger... when asking what do you
expect,
59 matches
Mail list logo
