On 27 Jul 2015, at 22:21, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
you refer to the guy in Helsinki, and its copies which are
in W and M.
Ok good, this time Bruno Marchal correctly wrote W AND M.
You just betray yourself that for
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
An uploaded mind is running within a computer process. If the mind presses
a button inside its virtual environment, the process will fork and if
within the simulation of the child process a light within the virtual
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is asked to any entity, or machines, before they undergo a
duplication. The question is: what do you expect to live.
The question is why does
Bruno Marchal
absolutely
insist
on using personal pronouns even when
On 28 Jul 2015, at 03:46, chris peck wrote:
@ Bruno
Not at all. And John Calrk agrees with what I will say here.
personal identity is not a Leibnizian notion.
You need to focus on what these factors govern:
1) international tariffs.
2) the state of the chinese economy.
3)
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You agreed already that a conscious uploaded mind in a process that forks
and diverges is from the uploaded mind's point of view, an
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction can't even be
described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the experiment and
compile statistics from it and then compare the number obtained from
experiment with
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You agreed already that a conscious uploaded mind in a process that forks
and diverges is from the uploaded mind's point of view, an experience
indistinguishable from fundamental randomness.
If it is
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
UDA is for the babies
And so are pompous homemade acronyms.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 28 Jul 2015, at 04:46, John Clark wrote:
David Deutsch Wrote::
Many mathematicians to this day don't realize that information
is physical and that there is no such thing as an abstract computer.
Only a physical object can compute things.
Bruno Marchal Wrote:
That approach
On 7/28/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To refute what I say, you have to show a math theory which assumes something physical.
Even quantum information theory does not assume any physical objects. They assume only
mathematical relations.
That's not significant. Information theory is the
On 28 Jul 2015, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction
can't even be described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the
experiment and compile statistics from it and then
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3805
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to
On 28 Jul 2015, at 20:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/28/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To refute what I say, you have to show a math theory which assumes
something physical. Even quantum information theory does not assume
any physical objects. They assume only mathematical relations.
Since we're talking about electrons or photons, everything should be free,
since one is liberated from the heavy realm of neutrons and protons. Maybe
computing cycles is the common currency. The Jeff Bezos upload has more
computing cycles than I because he is far richer. Maybe this is how
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction can't even be
described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the experiment and
compile
On 7/28/2015 1:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jul 2015, at 20:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/28/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To refute what I say, you have to show a math theory which assumes something physical.
Even quantum information theory does not assume any physical objects. They
16 matches
Mail list logo
