On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it
at length. I was one of the ones who said he probably meant ... whatever it
turned out he meant.
On 24 March 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/23/2014 8:57 PM, LizR wrote:
*Is* DNA a universal programming language?
I'm not sure what a universal programming language means. Just 1s and
0s are enough language. I think you probably mean to ask is whether a cell
is
On 3/23/2014 11:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/23/2014 8:57 PM, LizR wrote:
/Is/ DNA a universal programming language?
I'm not sure what a universal programming language means. Just 1s and 0s
are
On 3/23/2014 11:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I
was one of
Liz, Brent, others,
Just a revision, before you forget the definitions :)
A multiverse (W, R), or frame, is a set W, with a binary relation R.
The elements of the set are called world , and denoted often by
greek letter (alpha, beta, gamma, ...). The binary relation is called
accessibility
On 24 March 2014 19:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/23/2014 11:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/23/2014 8:57 PM, LizR wrote:
*Is* DNA a universal programming language?
I'm not sure what a universal programming language
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing.
I always find presentations disappointing in terms of information content,
at least when compared to papers and articles, but I was more than happy to
see Max in the flesh
Not to belabor a point Edgar, but wood gathering for 1.7 billion does incur
forest chopping. Yes it is renewable, but if one is focus not only on flora,
but fauna, giving this 1.7 billion a good substitute seems to be the way to go.
My own personal favorite is wind, sun, and molten salt, but
1. Germany, when they shut down their nukes in 2011, restarted the old coal
burners using US coal, and dirtied their skies.
2. The German government has just began firing up their uranium burners.
3. 25% renewables sound like a great start, but this focuses attention on the
remaining 75%
On Friday, March 21, 2014 7:04:58 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 2:11:17 PM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 12:42:13 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not so much interested in defining CTM, as in exploding the
assumptions from
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
So, you admit you were wrong to object to my statement even with
reversible laws there is more than one way to get into a given MACROstate?
No, sometimes that would be true but because of chaos it wouldn't always
be. For
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical
fluctuation on the level of individual decades,
Well now, it would be pretty difficult for that prediction to be proven
wrong. It reminds me of the famous
On 23 Mar 2014, at 19:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 4:49:48 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg
On 23 Mar 2014, at 21:40, bs...@cornell.edu wrote:
One might note that at the end of Chapter Three (Proving Darwin)
Greg has the caveat Metabiology in its present form cannot
address thinking and consciousness, fascinating those these
be. (page 21).
I do not see any reason why plants
On 24 Mar 2014, at 00:43, Joseph Knight wrote:
Bruno, I've seen you say before that COMP (in addition to the first-
person indeterminacy) also predicts the no-cloning theorem. Could
you explain how?
In a purely qualitative way, that should be easy, if you succeed in
staying naive-cold
Bruno,
How does cloning differ from asking the doctor.
Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory-
just to indicate that this is an important question.
Richard
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 00:43, Joseph Knight wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 04:57, LizR wrote:
Is DNA a universal programming language?
I would say, not by itself. But some sufficiently long DNA strand, can
define a universal programming language/amchine, with respect to the
cytoplasm and the neighborhood. A cell is a universal computer, but
Is there anything in particle physics that emulates the processing capabilities
of computers, analog or digital? My question goes below Chaitin's metabiology.
Something that is a characteristic of physics.
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list
On 24 Mar 2014, at 05:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2014 8:57 PM, LizR wrote:
Is DNA a universal programming language?
I'm not sure what a universal programming language means. Just 1s
and 0s are enough language.
Universal language can have a very tiny alphabet {0, 1}.
But the alphabet
On 3/24/2014 12:17 AM, LizR wrote:
Do you mean which population do I want to join in order to have the greatest chance of
leaving descendants?
I think that's the underlying assumption - but I didn't want to bias answers by putting it
that way.
Brent
--
You received this message because you
On 25 March 2014 08:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
How does cloning differ from asking the doctor.
Forgive me but it seems that you are being contradictory-
just to indicate that this is an important question.
Richard
If you don't mind me asking, how is Bruno being
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2
--
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
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor
to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two
different locations? To me at least that seems to be essentially cloning
you.
Richard
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Without a specific reason for wanting to be in a population the question is
meaningless in my opinion, one could have all sorts of reasons in theory,
so I'll assume that the point is to maximise your descendants. So I suppose
the question boils down to what is the representation of each population
On 25 March 2014 07:36, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/consciousness-is-not-a-computation-2
He could make similar arguments claiming consciousness is not chemistry.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are
He gives six evidences.
First, he falls for quantum pseudoscience.
Second, he says that he personally failed to make AI when he tried and
incorrectly implies that difficulty means impossibility.
Third, he brings up the hard problem and uses it to make an argument from
ignorance.
Fourth, he says
On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor to
gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two different
locations? To me at least that seems to be essentially cloning you.
According to MWI I am not unique for there are many versions of myself
having made different choices and now living different lives. Therefore I
am being cloned all the time. As I understand comp, it is consistent with
MWI. That in itself seems contradictory to the no-cloning theorem to me.
On 25 March 2014 10:33, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor
to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two
different
On 25 March 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
According to MWI I am not unique for there are many versions of myself
having made different choices and now living different lives. Therefore I
am being cloned all the time. As I understand comp, it is consistent with
MWI. That
On 25 March 2014 11:03, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-24 22:00 GMT+01:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor
to gather info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two
different locations? To
On 25 March 2014 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical
fluctuation on the level of individual decades,
Well now, it would be pretty difficult
On 3/24/2014 2:33 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 8:00 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Well then the question is How is cloning different from Asking the doctor to gather
info from the substitution level to reproduce you at two different
Thank you for the above, for my diary!
On 24 March 2014 20:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
New exercise:
show
(W,R) respects A - []A
iff
R is symmetrical.
OK, symmetrical means for all a and b, a R b implies b R a.
A - []A can (I hope) be read as the truth of A in one
Original Message
Scott Aaronson reviews Max Tegmark's /Our Mathematical Universe/:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1753
The comments section includes Max Tegmark's remarks on Scott Aaronson's remarks, ending
for now with:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the same thing.
I can see the appeal. If the universe ever *does* prove to be isomorphic to
a mathematical
The comments section looks like a mini Everything list in itself.
On 25 March 2014 16:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and
On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/24/2014 8:24 PM, LizR wrote:
But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is
isomorphic to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that
structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact
other interpretations had similar
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges
Library of Babel. Almost all of them are just lists of what
happens. Scott's point is
40 matches
Mail list logo
