On 3 April 2014 16:56, wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction collapse i
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
smi...@zonnet.nl
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the
r
On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains
not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very
good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net).
Only if you loo
On 3 April 2014 17:01, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:13 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Climate models
>
>
>
> On 3 April
On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ev
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ev
Chris de Morsella wrote:
> > No one is ever going to "recover" the dispersed Thorium in your garden's
> dirt
>
>
They could but no one will bother doing anything like that until ores of
much much higher concentrations are used up, and at current consumption
rates that won't happen for about a bi
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:13 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On 3 April 2014 12:17, wrote:
We still have to possess the technology in place to r
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 April 2014 14:39, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
>>> wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> 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 disappointi
On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
>> wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly
>> reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities li
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction
> collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable
> statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly,
> and we
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:31:46 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> Yes but in general making plans to solve problems that won't show up for
>> more than 15 years usually turns into a farce, it does so for 2 reasons:
>>
>> 1) The problem you foresee has little relation to the problem you
>> eventuall
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:31:46 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
> > Yeah I like thorium too. I realise it isn't the universal panacea but
>> seems like a good bet if handled carefully.
>>
>
> It's a bit off topic but all my life I've heard people
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 3:05:49 PM UTC+1, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
> It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research
> they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the
> belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has
> been hi
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction
collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable
statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly,
and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would
say w
On 3 April 2014 12:17, wrote:
> We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with
> clean. Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say
> to 20%. You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.
>
> Auckland isn't electrified??? (How am
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:40:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 April 2014 11:46, wrote:
>>>
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 3 April 2014 11:46, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote:
>
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 April 2014 11:46, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote:
>>>
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> I'm not sure c
We still have to possess the technology in place to replace carbon with clean.
Please note that New Delhi, or Auckland is not yet electrified, say to 20%.
You cannot do a kidney transplant without a replacement kidney.
-Original Message-
From: LizR
To: everything-list
Sent: Wed,
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
>
> > On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >> On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > OK...y
On 3 April 2014 11:46, wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which explains
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 April 2014 10:55, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
>>> which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:03:13 AM UTC+1, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Threads like this have no relation with questions about what this list is
> about: the ultimate reality.
>
> Well...wait... Why questions like this are discussed here? My guess is
> that yes, indeed. This is a question ab
On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
>> which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
>>
>
> Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz?
> ,
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which
> explains how we come to measure discrete values.
>
Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz?
,
Say, if we imagine a process of strippi
On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are
> some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)].
>
>
> I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not
> transitive means that there exist a
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow
them, and agree...
On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that
>> the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl
>
> It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
> are supposed to do in a
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only occur in
> the context of a sense making experience.
>
>
> Did I ever said the contrary?
>
>
> Yes, you ar
On 01 Apr 2014, at 22:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Logic obeys its own incorrigibility also. Logic cannot be doubted
logically.
I would say that it is the contrary.
Logic + numbers leads to doubts and science only make the doubt
greater, augmenting the possibilities, and freedom degrees.
<
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure
sense making and sense expe
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
the consp
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:21:29 PM UTC-4, Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> Hi everyone:
>
> I am currently interested in two questions:
>
> Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything
> [latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp? Hi Bruno.
>
> If life is inherently sel
On 02 Apr 2014, at 04:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz
apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<>A iff R
is symmetrical?
Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R)
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research
they are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the
belief in the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has
been hijacked by ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.
Saibal
Citeren "Alber
On 02 Apr 2014, at 03:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote:
I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and
now my brain is full. A "for-dummies" version would be appreciated...
I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability
measure on
Hi Richard,
On 01 Apr 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears
to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized
with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each
universe reoccurs is given by t
Threads like this have no relation with questions about what this list is
about: the ultimate reality.
Well...wait... Why questions like this are discussed here? My guess is that
yes, indeed. This is a question about the ultimate reality. GW is a
question of belief, about where we go, one of the m
40 matches
Mail list logo
