On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I get your point with decoherence.
Again, I would say that it
On 31 May 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 May 2017 18:39, "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 17:00, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 May 2017 at 14:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30,
On 1/06/2017 8:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2017, at 09:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 31/05/2017 4:40 pm, Pierz wrote:
>> On 5/30/2017 7:30 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>> Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your
explanations to be very lucid and helpful - they also confirm
On 31 May 2017, at 09:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 31/05/2017 4:40 pm, Pierz wrote:
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:28:18 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
Sorry. Something funny with my verizon account.
Brent
On 5/30/2017 8:09 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
> Brent, are you replying from a mobile? I’m
On 1/06/2017 6:28 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 May 2017 at 04:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
On 31/05/2017 12:30 pm, Pierz wrote:
Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations
to be very lucid and helpful -
On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I get your point with decoherence.
Again, I would say that it all depends on theories of mind. What does
mind
On 31 May 2017 at 04:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 12:30 pm, Pierz wrote:
>
> Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be very
> lucid and helpful - they also confirm my own understanding.
>
>
> Thank you for the kind comments, I
On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I get your point with decoherence.
Again, I would say that it all depends on theories of mind. What
does
mind supervene on? Perhaps it is true that
On 31 May 2017 18:39, "Bruno Marchal" wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 17:00, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 May 2017 at 14:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 May 2017, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 30 May 2017, at 17:00, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 May 2017 at 14:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Right, I agree with you and Pierz on this. My
On 31/05/2017 4:40 pm, Pierz wrote:
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:28:18 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
Sorry. Something funny with my verizon account.
Brent
On 5/30/2017 8:09 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
> Brent, are you replying from a mobile? I’m still receiving your
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:28:18 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
>
> Sorry. Something funny with my verizon account.
>
> Brent
>
> On 5/30/2017 8:09 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
> > Brent, are you replying from a mobile? I’m still receiving your replies,
> as others are, on my private email.
Sorry. Something funny with my verizon account.
Brent
On 5/30/2017 8:09 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
Brent, are you replying from a mobile? I’m still receiving your replies, as others are,
on my private email. That’s what happens to me when I try to reply using my iPhone. The
"reply to all"
On 31/05/2017 12:30 pm, Pierz wrote:
Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be
very lucid and helpful - they also confirm my own understanding.
Thank you for the kind comments, I try my best to be clear.
IIRC, you weren't a particular fan of MWI when I last
Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be very
lucid and helpful - they also confirm my own understanding. IIRC, you
weren't a particular fan of MWI when I last conversed with you on this
list. I wonder if you'd care to comment on my original argument on this
thread
On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I get your point with decoherence.
Again, I would say that it all depends on theories of mind. What does
mind supervene on? Perhaps it is true that every single coupling with
the environment prevents the
On 30 May 2017 at 14:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 May 2017, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM,
On 30 May 2017, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10,
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 7:28 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>> So you are talking different
>>> languages.
>>
>> Not sure I agree. We are perhaps
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
On
On 30/05/2017 7:28 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Pierz wrote:
So you are talking different
languages.
Not sure I agree. We are perhaps implicitly assuming different theories of mind.
I don't know if Telmo is aware or not of the conventional
On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
On 29/05/2017 11:21 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Pierz wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On 29/05/2017 11:21 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 29/05/2017 10:42
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 29/05/2017 11:21 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett
> > wrote:
> >> On 29/05/2017 10:42 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce
Isn't this the distinction between many minds and many world's? Whether to
draw the bounds if the superposition around the conscious mind or the
environment?
Does Saibal Mitra's "changing the past by forgetting" assume and rely upon
many minds?
Jason
On May 28, 2017 7:23 AM, "Pierz"
On 29/05/2017 11:21 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
On 29/05/2017 10:42 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
On 29/05/2017 6:26 pm, Telmo Menezes
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 10:42 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29/05/2017 6:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29,
On 29/05/2017 10:42 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
On 29/05/2017 6:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
I would say that there is only one
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 6:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29/05/2017 9:45 am, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>> WRT to this whole
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com>
Date: 26 May 2017 at 19:36
Subject: Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)
To: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>, Bruno Marchal <
bruno.fernand.marc...@gmail.com>
On 26 May 2017 18:49, &qu
On 29/05/2017 6:26 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
On 29/05/2017 9:45 am, Pierz wrote:
WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler point to
be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 9:45 am, Pierz wrote:
>
> WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler point to
> be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now whether, in MWI,
> macroscopic
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought
>> >
On 29/05/2017 3:33 pm, Pierz wrote:
Russell, do you believe that Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition
of dead and alive before we open the box?
That depends a little on your point of view. For the 'bird' view from
outside the wave function, all superpositions exist timelessly, so the
cat
Russell, do you believe that Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition of
dead and alive before we open the box?
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:26:49 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>
On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is another question as to whether we are in a superposition,
of say red and green T.Rexes, but that they are in separate
decohered worlds and the overlap function is zero FAPP, as
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> There is another question as to whether we are in a superposition,
> of say red and green T.Rexes, but that they are in separate
> decohered worlds and the overlap function is zero FAPP, as Russell
> says. I don't think such a
On 29/05/2017 9:45 am, Pierz wrote:
WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler
point to be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now
whether, in MWI, macroscopic histories can merge is surely an
interesting puzzle. But /without /MWI, there cannot be any
WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler point
to be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now whether, in MWI,
macroscopic histories can merge is surely an interesting puzzle. But *without
*MWI, there cannot be any ambiguity about the colour of T-Rexes. In
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
> >We are merely ignorant of its state. I would argue the same
> >applies to the colour of T. Rex. The past is not in a
> >superposition of possible values, but we are ignorant of
On 28-05-2017 04:24, Jason Resch wrote:
On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often
thought about
how, according to special relativity, you can
On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often
thought about
> how, according to special relativity, you can
On 28 May 2017, at 05:46, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is
that two
observers in different reference frames can have different
presents. Two
humans walking past each other
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 12:24:32 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought
>> about
>> >
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought
> about
> > how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space
> and
On 28 May 2017 4:46 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is that two
> observers in different reference frames can have different presents. Two
> humans
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is that two
> observers in different reference frames can have different presents. Two
> humans walking past each other on the sidewalk may have presents that
> include
On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought
> about
> > how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space
> and
>
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about
> how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space and
> vice versa, and therefore how from a different perspective we can think of
> the
On 26 May 2017 at 07:03, Pierz wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 2:21:37 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
>>
>> Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m
>> seeing this business with
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 2:21:37 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
>
> Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m
> seeing this business with “reply to David 4” etc…?
>
>
> On 26 May 2017, at 12:29 pm, Brent Meeker
On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m
seeing this business with “reply to David 4” etc…?
On 26 May 2017, at 12:29 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/25/2017 6:30 PM, Pierz wrote:
I clicked "reply", but for some reason it only went to you. I'll copy
to the list.
Brent
On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m
seeing this business with “reply to David 4” etc…?
On 26 May 2017, at 12:29
Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about
how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space and
vice versa, and therefore how from a different perspective we can think of
the past as distant in space rather than time: my childhood being 40
101 - 154 of 154 matches
Mail list logo