On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 07:04:00PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
I thought of that - a kind of quantum Truman Show in which the computer
fakes QM effects with a pseudo-random number generator, or even some other
quantum source (like the laser?). However mere random sequences will not
fool a
On 12 May 2014, at 12:05 pm, John Ross wrote:
He (Stephen Hawking) believes science has become too complicated and we need
a theory that can be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just
a few scientists.
Are you quite sure that was Stephen who authored that thought or
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR
On 11 May 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I think you could tell that the article was almost certainly
worthless from the title alone because it is asking the wrong
question. There is a vastly better question, Is
On 11 May 2014, at 18:29, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, please do not identify what - I - need for an (my!)
unidentified consciousness.
Excellent John!
That's the whole point. Löbian numbers already get the difference
between the body-mind third person relations and *my* unnameable first
The alpha particle is comprised of four protons repelling each other while
circling in a tight circle and two electrons looping through the circular path
of the protons. The four protons are attracted to the two electrons. The
Coulomb forces from the two electrons are effective in keeping
I think my theory is a simple as possible. You should read my book. Let me
know if you want me to send it to you.
John R.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 7:06 PM
To:
His The Theory of Everything was extremely easy to read.
John R.
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 4:54 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES
On
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:23 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.comwrote:
The alpha particle is comprised of four protons repelling each other while
circling in a tight circle and two electrons looping through the circular
path of the protons. The four protons are attracted to the two
On 11 May 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2014 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, the rest follows, but the negation of the rest follows too,
unless, like Peter Jones, you add a criterion of primitive physical
existence to what is needed for consciousness. But then the movie
On 5/12/2014 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
On 12 May 2014, at 00:52, LizR wrote:
On 11 May 2014 20:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Evolution did not produce consciousness, nor intelligence, no more
than prime number and computations. All that exist in arithmetic.
Evolution produced brain, which filter adequately
On 12 May 2014, at 03:01, Pierz wrote:
I've been following the Is consciousness computable? thread and it
occurs to me that there may be a contradiction in the UDA. Step 6
introduces the idea that we can teleport a brain (i.e. digitally
instantiate a set of memories, predispositions etc)
On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by
the abstraction of the universal machine are done by the sensory
substrate in which the machine-program is instantiated. The machine
is only an automated map as far as I
On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 May 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2014 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, the rest follows, but the negation of the rest follows too, unless, like Peter
Jones, you add a criterion of primitive physical existence to what is needed
On 12 May 2014 23:53, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 12:05 pm, John Ross wrote:
He (Stephen Hawking) believes science has become too complicated and we
need a theory that can be understandable in broad principal by everyone,
not just a few scientists.
Are
On 13 May 2014 04:28, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I think my theory is a simple as possible. You should read my book. Let
me know if you want me to send it to you.
Sorry but that is a non-answer to all the questions I have asked. If you
are incapable of explaining the
On 5/12/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2014 23:53, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 12:05 pm, John Ross wrote:
He (Stephen Hawking) believes science has become too complicated and we
need a
theory that can be
Stephen apparently think we will.
JR
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES
On 12 May 2014 23:53, Kim Jones
On 13 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2014 23:53, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 12:05 pm, John Ross wrote:
He (Stephen Hawking) believes science has become too complicated and we
need a
On 13 May 2014 11:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Stephen apparently think we will.
I thought THAT line was due to pressure from his (now ex) wife?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
I don’t believe I have claimed that my theory is “superior” to existing
theories or that it will “work better” or that it is an “explanatory
improvement” over existing theories.
I do believe it is closer to the truth than existing theories and that it is a
simpler and easier to understand
There is quite a lot that Richard Feynman wrote that wouldn't fit on a tee
shirt or be easily understood by Freshmen.
John R
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 4:05 PM
To:
On 13 May 2014 11:29, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I don’t believe I have claimed that my theory is “superior” to existing
theories or that it will “work better” or that it is an “explanatory
improvement” over existing theories.
Then what motivated you to come up with it?
I
On 13 May 2014 11:35, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
There is quite a lot that Richard Feynman wrote that wouldn’t fit on a tee
shirt or be easily understood by Freshmen.
Absorber theory, for one thing, I would say. But of course he also said
that theories start out in a messy
My theory complies with our four standards.
I need your mailing address. You may prefer to call me and tell me what it is.
My number during the day is 858-646-5488.
John R
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:23:44AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
The alpha particle is comprised of four protons repelling each other while
circling in a tight circle and two electrons looping through the circular
path of the protons. The four protons are attracted to the two electrons.
The
Thanks.
It's
10a Lansdowne Street,
Bayswater,
Auckland 0622
New Zealand
On 13 May 2014 11:54, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My theory complies with our four standards.
I need your mailing address. You may prefer to call me and tell me what
it is. My number during the day
On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by the
abstraction of the universal machine are done by the sensory substrate in
which the machine-program is
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:39:21 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 03:01, Pierz wrote:
I've been following the Is consciousness computable? thread and it
occurs to me that there may be a contradiction in the UDA. Step 6
introduces the idea that we can teleport a brain
30 matches
Mail list logo
