at the nexus of the
mind-body problem.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
Hi Lee,
Lee Corbin wrote:
George writes
Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This
is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain
the physics and the objects.
This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Proceeding that way you will run into trouble. But it is very easy to
find the k.
Let us be specific and let us imagine you have already written in
Fortran a generator of all programs of the one-variable partial
computable functions: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 ...
The list of
a fortran program generating
their codes.
2) the subset of (computable function from N to N) is enumerable, but
is NOT MECHANICALLY enumerable. The bijection with N exists, but is not
programmable, in *any* programming language!
George ? Are you ok.
Hanging on Remember, I would like to know
ny particular neuron may differ by a single
connection. With these assumptions we may infer that there is a
continuity in personal identity from anyone to anyone.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Meanwhile, I
would like to ask George and the others if they have a good
understanding of the present thread, that is on the fact that growing
functions has been well defined, that each sequence of such functions
are well defined, and each diagonalisation defines quite
of paper.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
see it does not
repeat. However, with this approach I could be taking chances.
Diagonalization clearly allows you to specify a number outside any
given set of number, but I have not been able to weave it into this
argument.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
and I was inside a larger box
enclosing the whole experiment? Would I feel the superposition? These
are very obvious questions to ask. This Scroedinger cat experiment
approximately dates to the 1920-1930's (?) and it is very well possible
that others have had the same thought.
George
of the phantom command.
Has anyone else have the same problem?
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
d person is a single history and corresponds to "I" AND the bomb
goes off/probability{bomb goes off}.
Plural person is multiple histories regarding the bomb, and corresponds
to "I" AND ("the bomb goes off" inclusive OR "the bomb does not go
off".) = &qu
Bruno Marchal wrote:
<>
Le 25-mars-06, 00:51, George Levy a crit :
Smullyan's white knigth had the mission to teach me about the logic of
G
and G*. Sorry, he failed.
All right, but this is just because he miss Church Thesis and Comp. His
purpose actually is just to introdu
assuming the many-world, and 3) G/G* logic assuming the many-world.
What would the white knight do if he were living in the many-world? What
kind of situations would highlight his talent to think in G. Would his
behavior appear to be paradoxical from our logical point of view?
George Levy
lusion of reality at our level of
implementation/illusion.
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To uns
t of simultaneity a la Einstein.
Then I turned to her and gave her the coup de grace, "Yeah but you
won't know what you look like at the precise time you look in the
mirror."
She looked at me straight in the eyes and said, "George, you are giving
me a headache!"
The moral o
is there something rather than everything? That
question can be answered by invoking the Anthropic Principle.
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
crazy and leave me alone. :-)
I bet you never had to deal with patients as wily as me. Aye, there is
method in my madness! :-P
George
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
George Levy writes:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem
his
own sanity.(But my kids had some doubts about mine) One way to prove
that you are crazy is to assert that you are sane. This means that the
average human is crazy! :-)
George
a
case for the use of the word theology?
Of course we are doing theology but don't say it too loud or you'll get
involved in a religious war. I think theology has too much baggage and
is populated by people with faith - a virtue for them, a vice for us. :-)
George
could get names such as
first person quantum psychomechanics or
relative formulation of quantum psyche theory (this alludes to Everett's
interpretation)
Sounds impressive! :-)
George
ost dictionaries
. Unfortunately, this word has already been invented. It can be found
on Google
in the context of animation and games and possibly Linguistics.
It may be that others in this list can think of a better word.
George
machine; indeed perhaps some
of you know already that this is just the second incompleteness of
Godel, once you interpret Bp by the machine proves p, coded in some
language the machine can use.
George
must
accept that no matter how large or small a segment of the continuum is
considered, the number of histories is the same. Hence measure is the
same for any observer.
George
in the number of
opportunities available to him no matter what his past history is.
>From the third person point of view, it makes sense to consider ratios
in measures, just like it makes sense to take ratios of line segments
of different lengths.
George
ar that if you
consider the problem from the information angle, then duplication of
information does not increase the measure of that information. This
would support the relative interpretation of measure.
George
Quentin
Le Jeudi 8 Décembre 2005 22:21, George Levy a écrit :
the
measure of a single branch even though the two branches are totally
indistinguishable? How can you possibly assert that any branch is
single, double, or a bundle composed of any number of identical
individual branches?
George
d branches and the clone continues living in other worlds.
George
on your relative point of view.
George
the
complement first person.
Thus all answers are correct depending on your relative point of view.
George
as the plenitude, or too small. Information is
maximized when the world is neither too large nor too small. We live in
a Goldilock world.
George
different locations and be
transmitted from one location to another location.
A related question is what is the smallest number of dimension for such
a universe, that can support life and consciousness.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:18:01AM +0100, Quentin Anc
From the thread Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet
Theory of Everything
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit :
The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed
by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite
principle that has real value in helping us understand why the world is
as we see it.
Very good Hal. I agree with you.
George
ancel long range
gravitational force (possibly what we are seeing with the Pioneer
spacecrafts?)
George Levy
are different. If negative matter/energy
could exist they would give space a negative curvature. Negative
matter/energy may be identical to dark energy.
George Levy
ude all the (logical)
systems "I" can imagine, and therefore it would be impossible for "I"
to provide you with a system that "I" cannot imagine? So it is
impossible for us to see beyond our slice of the plenitude.
George
Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ
in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist
when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent fundamental
logics. In fact, such observers would have a lot of difficulty
communicating since their worlds would be different slices of the
plenitude.
George
iffer from George Levy
(OK George?), although I could make sense of it. The point is, and
Dennett agrees on this, that, in cognitive *science*, we need to
develop some third person discourse on the first person discourses.
OK, strictly speaking the quantum and physical discourses appears at
some fi
/merging network that our
consciousness traverses. While our consciousness may spread over
(experience) several OMs or nodes in that network, it can only perceive
a single path through the network.
George
n't have to get down to that level of complexity. As long as the
high level function remains the same, you can still say "yes
doctor" to a substitution experiment. Example: artificial eye lenses
made of plastic and not of tissue, prostheses made of titanium steel
and not of bone.
George
a series of partial substitutions to find out if
it feels the same or not. For example, he could substitute in sequence
the visual cortex, the auditory cortex, some of the motor functions
We may be closer to this goal than you think.
George
. In a brain
substitution experiment, when should the patient say yes doctor or no
doctor?
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-juin-05, 05:33, George Levy a crit :
Note that according to this definition the
set of observer states may also encompass states with
inconsistent histories as long as they are indistinguishable.
The possibilities of observer moment being partially
re of an old and sick man is not
greater or smaller than that of
a healthy baby that he observes.
Some of the other threads in this list (i.e., another puzzle described
by Stathis) discuss experiments in which observers are copied and
destroyed. Answers to these questions depend on which two points are
sele
hysical OMs are indistinguishable, the measure cannot
be increased by increasing the number of physical OMs.
An interesting thought is that a psychological first person can surf
simultaneously through a large number of physical OMs.
George Levy
be rendered as:
If you believe that if you think that you are therefore you are, then
you think you are.
That's what Descartes thought!
:-)George
cell to cell has lasted possibly more than 4 billion years. (happy
birthday :-) ) So it appears that our existence does justify QTI
George
Hal Finney wrote:
Let me pose the puzzle like this, which is a form we have discussed
before:
Suppose you found yourself extremely old, due to a near
pasts, presents and
futures. In this merging and splitting network, some of us may reach
identical OM's. When we do we become the same person for a short
"time." Soon after we split again.
George
Hal Finney wrote:
Patrick Leahy writes:
I've recently been reading t
Worlds is a "lost cause"(http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XII)
according to R. F. Streater
AND MUCH MUCH MORE
George
n
defined yet. You are left only with a definition of "being:" To be is
to think. To paraphrase Erdos, "To be is to do math." ;-)
George
represent time).
Ultimately observer-moments are the stuff that makes up the plenitude.
They are more fundamental than any physical object and more basic than
time and space. If we are to assume some fundamental entity, I think
that observer-moments qualify.
George
is that free will cannot be absolute. It is really a relative,
subjective and first person concept that depends on the state of
mind of the observer and the complexity of the observed entity in
relation to the observer.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
Since this topic of legal responsibili
Hi Pete and Russell
While it may be true that the propagation of the wave equation (and the
consequent branching pattern) is deterministic, the actual branch in
which one instance of us finds itself in the Multiverse, is random.
I agree with Russell that free will occurs only in irrational
is the output
of the switch. However you know that p is known.
Could you pursue this analogy further?
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi
George, [out-of-line message]
perhaps you could try to motivate your "qBp == If q then p".
I don't see the relation with "if q is 1 then p is known, and and if q
is 0
then p is unknown". How do you manage the "known" notio
1
I am not sure where this is leading but here it is.
George
have rechecked this table and I don't
see anything wrong. Is there something wrong?
It may be that Boolean algebra is not adequate to express Lob. The
question is how can Lob's formula be expressed simply by a digital
circuit a block diagram or a neural net?
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
A long time
diffraction rules. Quantum mechanics does predicts
Afshar's experiment when it is applied inconsistenly. Afshar's
experiment highlights these inconsistencies.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
I just read the New Scientist article Quantum Rebel last night about
Shariar Afshar's work on the double
Undecided.
I am not sure if Physics is derived from an ideal infinite
self-referential systems or from a more human and messy finite system
and I cannot think of an obvious and clear-cut justification for either
approach. What do you think?
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 09:55 20/07/04 -0400
o creature. And there is no math that the creature
could do.
George
even know if copying (increasing measure) has
any ethical significance or any other value or drawbacks.
George
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Does your thesis survive without the notion
of duplicatability or copying? As I have pointed
out, QM does not allow duplication and
and the frame of reference is defined by the
contigency that A imposes on their destination Washington/Moscow.
George
PS. I just saw the title of Stephen's post, and I assume it implies
trouble for duplication experiments in general... Anyways I am sending
this post. :-)
s that consciousness
is unaware of
1) any substitution of parts or the whole of its physical
implemetation (i.e. body)
2) its own measure (the size of the subset of worlds in the
manyworld that sustain his or her consciousness)
George Levy
Jeanne Houston wrote:
I am a quantum physics en
end up
with a relative one and I argued that you had no justification for
starting with the third person (absolute?) formulation. My goal was to
(help you?) achieve the ultimate relativization.
However, yes I am ready for some definitions. :-)
George
John M wrote:
George wrote June 09, 2004 2:58 PM:
...
I don't understand. To give you
an objective response you force me to look up the dictionary
Dangerous exercise. Vocabularies usually list the historical
common sense versions of obsolete worldviews. Do ou have
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 17:50
05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Let's me see if I can convince you to bridge
the gap and maybe take the relative formulation as a starting point.
Like Socrates, let me start with one question. How can you possibly
know to begin with this particular
like "1+1=2", "Prime(17)",
or "the machine number i
(in some enumeration) does not stop on
input number j", this + Church Thesis + the "yes doctor"
act of faith is what I mean by comp.
George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi George,
At 15:33 03/06/04 -
but becomes a quagmire because of its lack of formalism.
How can the notion of "objective reality" be defined? In fact, is there
such a thing as a true psychological objective reality? However, the
fact that a "psychological objective reality" is an oxymoron
(contradiction in terms) does not invalidate the definition of the
observer at the psychological level. Au contraire.
George Levy
else.
Everything-list people might be it.
I now humbly wait for rebuttals and offers to go elsewhere.
George
Hi Stephen
Sorry I was tired when I replied to you. Let me be expend on the last
post and be a little more explicit.
THIS IS A REPOST OF THE LAST POST TO YOU.
George
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Interleaving.
-
Original Message -
From
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Interleaving.
-
Original Message -
From:
George
Levy
To:
Stephen
Paul King
Sent:
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject:
Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 15:51 10/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
BM: But you agree there is no plenitude without an UD.
GL: No I don't agree. I don't agree that the UD is the origin of all
things.
But to say that there is no plenitude without an UD does not mean that
the UD
is the origin
eterminacy and the experiment that the creature can
conduct are limited by its own perception of itself, of its mind, of
its body and of its world. Its own mind will shape its own world.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
Sorry, but I fail to see it as self evident. Imagine being a creature
immersed in a virtu
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
My take of Russell's post is:
Unless the creature had some experience that
was not dismissible as a hallucination (1st person) and/or was witness
by others (a proxy of 3rd person?) that lead him to the conclusion
Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 16:13 07/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
My view is that the observer-experience simply consists in the
(virtual) transitions from one observer-moment to another where
the transition is filtered by having to be consistent
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with George, but note that I arrive at an equivalent
assertion without using that lower levels have lower complexity
and therefore higher measure. That is possible, but
the problem is that it is a priori hard to estimate the dumbness
of the universal dovetailer
at a universal
scale, entropy fluctuates up and down depending on the need of the
observer and to remain consistent with the observer. Our constitution
implies that most of the time entropy ramps up. Sometimes it steps
down. At the scale of the Plenitude entropy is constant.
George
Stephen P
in the computers.
Your proposed test idea is interesting but it should be designed to
cancel out these infinities.
George
Jesse Mazer wrote:
George Levy wrote:
You assume that you could get your hands on the absolute probability
distribution. You must assume when you observe a physical system is
that you are an observer. The existence of (objective) absolute
reality is another assumption that may
ces eating
escargots.
George
ABSTRACT:
Suggestion for keeping up with the volume of posts is to provide an
abstract.
CONTENT
I share Sergio's problem. I just can't keep up. How about providing an
abstract summarizing the post. Either that or keep your content less
than half a page.
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
of the subroutine B is
meaningless. It is the number of calls to B from A{}that matters.
George Levy
Hal Finney wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard writes:
Why is it assumed that a multiple "runs" makes any difference to the
measure?
One reason I like this
to display a macroscopic white rabbit.
Ergo: No observable macroscopic white rabbit.
But of course the biggest rabbit is taken for granted. It is right under
our nose and so close that we don't see it.
George Levy
is intimately tied up with our
own rationality which is an essential ingredient of our consciousness.
Thus the world itself seems to be a product of ourselves.
George Levy
-worlds, and COMP. What in
the nature of consciousness makes such a layer important?
George Levy
Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
I think this discussion might have already took place
here, but I would like to take you opinions on this.
How do we define (de)coherence? What makes interference
happen
is in fact zero information.
.
Start with the set(everything) and start deriving your numbers.
To do this, instead of using the operation set( ), use the operation
elementof( ).
Hence one=elementof(everything) and two = elementof(everything - one);
three = elementof(everything - one - two)
George
and how would it interact with ordinary matter?
George
Ron McFarland wrote:
Looks like this topic ended with my last post of 3 days ago. Thank
you to those who contributed. I've no idea how things will really
settle out in a Theory of Everything related to physics. My arguments
are but one
he measure of a first person as seen by a 3rd person.
However, measure of a first person as seen by a first person remains
constant.
Because of this drastic difference, ASSA and RSSA supporters are led to
widely different views of Quantum immortality.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
Saibal M
what would you do with the lamp
ONF? This is something we should really worry about instead of
worrying about the lamp!
George Levy
Norman Samich wrote
Welcome,
I've been looking for an idiot savant
to answer this question: Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp.
This isan ideal lamp, capable
quantum and relativistic
rotations?
George
Doriano Brogioli wrote:
Hi to everybody. I subscribed to this mailing list yesterday, but I'd
like to pose a question since I think it _must_ be the right place.
Quantum mechanics can be formulated in terms of path integrals
(Feinmann integrals
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Interleaving,
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?
HI Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Does
this pattern, it seems that the process is linear,
(thus simplifying computation) so computational complexity and
computational power do seem to be of relevance.
George.
Sorry about the graphics... There were'nt any except some italics I think.
I'll send this one in plain text.. tell me how it goes.
Hal Finney wrote:
George Levy writes:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
Oh, sorry, I'
h point in the conscious locus perceives
the world that gives it meaning.
George
s Hawkings
has shown and there is a relationship between entropy and information.
This topic is ripe for a nice thought experiment.
George
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jean-Michel and Hal,
All good humor aside, Hal makes a good point! The conditions that would
exist as one approaches th
and dying are identical except
that they differ by the utility function that we apply to the wave
function. I hope that our discussion will continue along this line and
clarify some of our ideas.
George
Tim May wrote:
In looking over the traffic, the archives, and the responses I have
gotten
. It provides a form of cosmic censorship. By reducing their
measure through QS and the likes, advanced aliens just evolve out of existence
in our world!
George
the many world more as a lattice then
as a tree. Thus navigation in the many-world makes sense.
George
This
is a reply to Eric Hawthorne and Tim May.
Eric Hawthorne wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Conclusions:
All this involves really basic probability theory.
The first person perspective probability is identical to the probability
conditional to the person staying alive
of reference.
George
101 - 200 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
