Hi Stephen,
My point is that time as a pointer that points to what exists and what not
(anymore or yet), cannot exist. You can indeed map the set of all such
pointers to the real line. I agree that relativity is inconsistent with
such an idea of time.
Saibal
> Hi Saibal
>
> Are you defining
07:27 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
>
> Accepting QM without collapse, I am not sure you can dump your memory
> in the environment in any truly irreversible way.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2009, at 15:22, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, I ag
I just send a posting to the FOR list about my article. I did not have the
time to reply to everyone on this list previously. Reading the old
discussion again, I think that it was suggested that the exact quantum
states matter, but they don't. It was only used to illustrate the thought
experiment
of 10^23 particles:
the result of a new measurement is not pre-determined in either case.
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker"
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 08:06 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > If we consider
rement and you don't
know the outcome, the outcome is not fixed (proovided, of course, there is
indeed more than one branch).
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Mallah"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 03:47 AM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
--- On T
probability of finding yourself on an Earth were the dinosaurs never lived.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 06:54 PM
Subject: Re: Changing the past by forgetting
>
> Nice! I did refer often to the Saibal Mitra backtracki
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825
I've written up a small article about the idea that you could end up in a
different sector of the multiverse by selective memory erasure. I had
written about that possibility a long time ago on this list, but now I've
made the argument more rigorous.
--~--~---
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
QTI, the life expectancy of the version of me simulated in that dream
should have been b
large brain the size of the galaxy would still be "me".
:)
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 03:24 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law
>
> O
Citeren nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
> physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
> upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
> material. If the many worlds hypothe
Citeren nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
> physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him
> upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive
> material. If the many worlds hypothe
The best thing you could do is to freeze your brain. I think that will
preserve the connections between the neurons, although the cells will be
destroyed.
This will make it easier for a future civilization to regenerate you
digitally
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
universe described by the
Standard Model.
citeren Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
>> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Diffe
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different
persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
"observer moment" of me.
As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe take
If it feels bafflement and confusion, then surely it is conscious :)
An AI that takes information from books might experience similar qualia we
can experience. The AI will be programmed to do certain tasks and it must
thus have a notion of what it is doing is ok., not ok, or completely wrong.
If
The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any given religious
text there should exist a universe which "best fits" those text.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Believing in Divine De
The listserver was experiencing a lot of "computer pain" recently and
that prevented it from function normally :)
John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
Y
uncompoutable numbers, non countable sets etc. don't exist in first
order logic, see here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Ah the famous Juergen Schmidhuber! :)
>
> Is the universe a computer. Well, if you define 'univer
be considered.
>
> Cheers
>
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > QTI in
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
> &g
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum
states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or
experiences a person can have, see here for details:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0
I think I can prove that QTI as intepreted in this list is false, I'll post
the proof in a new thread.
The only version of QTI that makes sense to me is this:
All possible states exist "out there" in the multiverse. The observer
moments are timeless objects so, in a certain sense, QTI is true. Bu
- Original Message -
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 08:28 AM
Subject: Re: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
> The real problem is not just that it is a philosophical speculation,
> it is that it does not lead to any t
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 09:23 AM
Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
Brent Meeker writes:
> > I think it is one of the most profound things about consciousness > >
that observer moments don't *need*
.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 08:49 AM
Subject: Re: Teleportation thought experiment and UD+ASSA
>
> "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I
I don't understand why you consider the measures of the programs that do the
simulations. The ''real'' measure should be derived from the algorithmic
complexity of the laws of physics that describe how the computers/brains
work. If you know for certain that a computation will be performed in this
its neurons
> only?
> Isn't a person (as anything) part of his ambience - in a wider view: of
> the
> totality, with interction back and forth with all the changes that go on?
> Are you really interested only in the dance of those silly neurons?
>
> John M
> - Orig
There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in terms
of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are
connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the high-level
algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified by
the
From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Smullyan Shmullyan, give me a real example
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2006, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> > Einstein seems to have believed in ''immorta
Einstein seems to have believed in ''immortal observer moments''.
In a BBC documentary about time it was mentioned that Einstein consoled a
friend whose son had died in a tragic accident by saying that relativity
suggests that the past and the future are as real as the present.
Saibal
From:
This thread is still alive! It seems that information can't be erased in
this thread either :)
I think that information can't be erased because of the way time is (or
should be) defined. If you take the observer moment approach to the
multiverse, then you have to define a notion of time. That def
- Original Message -
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 01:46 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
&g
TECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 03:22 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
>
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
> >is lost? Information loss means that time ev
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states to the same final state. The observer in the final state thus
cannot know that information really has been lost.
- Original Mes
scientific theory must be highly falsifiable, otherwise
we are just going back to the days of Scholastic debates...
http://clublet.com/why?AngelsOnTheHeadsOfPins
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Stephen Paul King ;
Stephen,
Theorists are always a bit ahead and they have
already found ways to save SUSY from negative results from the LHC.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From:
Stephen
Paul King
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:04
PM
Subject:
tally.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 01:25 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
>
> Le 15-déc.-05, à 03:04, Saibal Mitra a
- Original Message -
From: "Johnathan Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > In the multiverse, only other people
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2006/outline.html
gt; Galaxy, or Universe). It could be argued that your measure relative to the
> rest of the Universe (or that part of it which is duplicated) has now
> decreased. Is your expectation of survival in this case more like the
> original teleportation example, or more like the MWI branching example?
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/12/2/1
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 03:06 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > - Original Messag
s in quantum branch splitting? It seems to me that in both
> cases the relative measure of everything in the world stays the same, even
> though in absolute terms there is double of everything.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> Saibal Mitra writes:
>
> >Correction, I seem
d the person not been
killed. Then his measure would have doubled. But because he is killed in one
of the two copies of Earth, his measure stays the same. In a quantum suicide
experiment his measure would be reduced by a factor two.
- Original Message -
From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EM
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stathis Papaioannou"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 04:47 P
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
>
> Saibal wrote:
> > > > The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
> > > > Jesse), all that exists is an ens
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 07:41 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jonatha
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 05:49 AM
Subject: RE: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> Saibal wrote:
> > The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with
> > Jesse), all that exists is an ensemble of
The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with Jesse), all that
exists is an ensemble of isolated observer moments. The future, the past,
alternative histories, etc. they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't
see how some states can be more ''real'' than other states. Of course, the
un
You clearly forgot to read this:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
John Ross:
''General Relativity and String Theory
[0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and gravity
but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, attempting to
explain g
Well, as you can see here:
http://cabtep5.cnea.gov.ar/particulas/daniel/curri/curreng.html
He isn't very experienced yet. I know of some experienced professors of
have made worse mistakes :)
So, what goes wrong? Well, you don't get an interference pattern at one end
even if you don't detect the
Hal gives the correct explanation of what's going on. In general, all you
have to do to analyze the problem is to consider all contributions to a
particular state and add up the amplitudes. The absolute value squared of
the amplitude gives the probability, which may or may not contain an
interfere
Since we are discussing neutrinos, I thought it is fun to mention antropic
constraints on neutrino masses derived by Tegmark, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304536
Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT), Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts), Levon Pogosian
(Tufts)
C
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are very
stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent:
ubject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> > As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino
> > is a tardyon.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
> >
> > At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
> > >I think the beta decay model is wr
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which are completely different from photons).
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent:
This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low
Hi Norman,
> At last, I may be getting a glimmering of understanding of your point of
> view (which doesn't mean that I agree with you). Thanks for your
patience.
>
> You seem to be saying that it is irrelevant if a Turing Machine, even one
> that operates at the speed of light, takes a billion
h the rest of the (real) universe this
doesn't qualify as a ''bona fide'' simulation.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Hi Norman,
A TM in our universe can simulate you living in a virtual universe. If your
universe is described by the same laws of physics as ours, then most
physicists believe that the TM would have to work in a nonlocal way from
your perspective.
Is this a problem? I don't think so, because the T
t; (arXiv:astro-ph/0302131 v1 7 Feb 2003)
>
> Norman
> ~~
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday,
Hi Godfrey,
It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality etc.
here. Ignoring the exact details of what Bruno (and others) are doing, it
all all boils down to this:
Does there exists an algorithm that when run on some computer would generate
an observer who would subject
I agree, but Tegmark does mention the idea that mathematical existence =
physical existence, which is basically the same thing (the universe
considered as a purely mathematical entity is ''eternal'').
The point is that the Universe appears to have a beginning from the point of
view of observers...
Hi Norman,
I have no idea why it received a dishonorable mention. It could be because
some physicists/cosmologists don't like anthropic reasoning.
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
How did it all begin?
Authors: Max Tegmark
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did i
ge
> theories in his youth I suspect "god's dice" are loaded against him
> this time.
>
> However he is always fascinating to read and hear. I saw him at Harvard
> this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous
> animations...
>
> Godfrey
gt; That much I will grant you...
>
> (Now I have met 't Hooft! 't Hooft was a neighbor of mine and I tell
> you: Bruno is no 't Hooft! ;- )
>
> Best regards
>
> Godfrey Kurtz
> (New Brunswick, NJ)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra &l
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
> More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum
> mechanistic view of the physical world. If you
> don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno.
> Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant
> to be.
There aren't man
I agree with the notion of OMs as events in some suitably chosen space.
Observers are defined by the programs that generate them. If we identify
universes with programs then observers are just embedded universes. An
observer moment is just a qualia experienced by the observer, which is just
an even
- Original Message -
From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 11:37 PM
Subject: Measure, Doomsday argument
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have some questions about measure...
>
> As I understand the DA, it is based on conditionnal probabilities. To
somehow
> ca
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'EverythingList'"
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 09:52 PM
Subject: Reference class (was dualism and the DA)
> Russell Standish wrote:
> > > > >(JC) If you want to insist that
You ca still create two identical systems starting from another system. E.g.
in stimulated emission two photons are created in the same state. Another
example is a Bose Einstein condensate, in which all the atoms are in the
same state.
Note that you can still teleport an unknown quantum state des
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 05:26 PM
Subject: Re: more torture
>
> > > Saibal Mitra writes:
> > >
> > > >Because no such thing as free
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 08:06 AM
Subject: Re: more torture
> Saibal Mitra writes:
>
> >Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider thr
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different universes in which the three different choices are made. The three
universes will have comparable measures. The antropic factor of 10^100 will
then dominate and will cause the observer to find himself having made choice
b
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 06:41 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >Fr
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 02:43 AM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >Fr
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
>
> >-Original Message-
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
>
> >-Original Message-
&g
I think one should define an observer moment as the instantaneous
description of the human brain. I.e. the minimum amount of information you
need to simulate the brain of a observer. This description changes over time
due to interactions with the environment. Even if there were no interactions
with
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 07:53 PM
Subject: RE: where did the Big Bang come from?
> Norman Samish wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Norman Samish wrote:
> > >> And where did this mysterious Big Bang come fro
- Original Message -
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 08:10 PM
Subject: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
> To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what is an OM.
> We need a formal model and description of a particu
- Original Message -
From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 05:00 AM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
> Stephen Paul King writes:
> > I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
base
> > the idea that "copies"
phenomena.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 03:24 PM
Subject: Re: objections to QTI
L
- Original
Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
"Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:28
AMSubject: Re: objections to QTIHi Stathis,I think that your
example below was helpful to clarify the disa
Hi Stathis,
I think that your example below was helpful to clarify the disagreement.
You say that randomly sampling from all the files is not 'how real life
works'. However, if you did randomly sample from all the files the result
would not be different from the selective time ordered sampling yo
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Verzonden: Saturday, May 28, 2005 07:26 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >You have to consider the hug
Hi Bruno
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 04:08 PM
Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not ac
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Verzonden: Friday, May 27, 2005 01:44 AM
Onderwerp: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
>
, when a measurement, or any other trigger, causes a decoherence,
> move forward in time from that moment and look back - you have parallel
> pasts that begin from the point of decoherence.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Saibal Mitra"
> To: everyth
Bruno was quoting another Aet from a parallel world :)
Quoting Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> If you expect to be quoted correctly, stop posting HTML-only.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 08:45:34AM -0500, aet.radal ssg wrote:
> > HEY! BRUNO - I, (aet) didn't say that. Someone else did. I w
Quoting Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 25th May 2005 Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> >One of the arguments in favor of the observer moment picture is that it
> >solves Tegmark's quantum suicide paradox. If you start with a set of all
> >possible obs
Plaga's paper has been published:
''Proposal for an experimental test of the
many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics''
Found.Phys. 27 (1997) 559
arXiv: quant-ph/9510007
-Defeat Spammers by
launching DDoS attacks on Spam-Webs
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan:
Verzonden: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 05:57 PM
Onderwerp: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
> Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an
> information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identif
Hi Patrick,
Welcome to the list!
When I was a student a friend told me about transfinite induction. While
ordinary induction allows you to generalize from n to n + 1 and thus to a
countable set, transfinite induction enables you to explore the continuum.
He didn't explain how it was done, though.
A Hamel basis is a set H such that every element of the vector space is a
*unique* *finite* linear combination of elements in H.
This can be proven using Zorn's lemma, which is a direct consequence of the
Axiom of Choice. The idea of the proof is as follows. If you start with an H
that is too sma
One could say that the brain of some
schizophrenic persons simulate otherpersons. I don't know if some of you
have seen the film 'A Beautiful mind'about the life of mathematician Nash.
In the film Nash was closelyacquainted to persons that didn't realy exist.
Only much later when he wastreat
> Russell Standish
wrote:>>> With my TIME postulate, I say that a conscious
observer necessarily> experiences a sequence of related observer moments
(or even a> continuum of them). To argue that observer moments are
independent of> each other is to argue the negation of TIME. With TIME,
the
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 03:47 PM
> Onderwerp: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
>
>
> > 2 weeks ago Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think that the MW immortality is correct at all! In a certain
> > >s
I would have to read about these theories, but I think that it
doesn't matter if you work with complex measures.
Saibal
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van:
Ben Goertzel
Aan: Bruno Marchal ; Saibal Mitra
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Verzonden: Tuesday
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
