On 19 March 2015 at 06:36, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Only the one with a linear bottom seems to have the reasonable measure.
>
I have long realised this, but mine insists on being round and its measure
is quite unreasonable.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
On 18 Mar 2015, at 04:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/17/2015 2:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll
saying about how to interpret stationary states in quantum
mechanics, too.
This is one of the more
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/17/2015 2:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll saying
about how to interpret stationary states in quantum mechanics, too.
This is one of the more interesting questions Sean raises and I am not
sure
On 3/17/2015 2:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll saying about how to
interpret stationary states in quantum mechanics, too.
This is one of the more interesting questions Sean raises and I am not sure I have fully
und
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll saying about
how to interpret stationary states in quantum mechanics, too.
This is one of the more interesting questions Sean raises and I am not
sure I have fully understood his answer to the main problem.
Th
On 16 Mar 2015, at 15:33, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote:
An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in
Everett's MWI as applied to cosmology and providing a solution to
the Boltzmann brain problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TF
On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote:
An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in
Everett's MWI as applied to cosmology and providing a solution to
the Boltzmann brain problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFy6Ben0Ho
Note that toward the end he seems to req
He says on his blog that the talk is based on this paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0298v1.pdf
Brent
On 3/12/2015 1:35 PM, LizR wrote:
I rarely get the chance to listen to talks (online or anywhere else) - I don't suppose
there's a paper or something giving same ideas?
On 12 March 2015 at 14:
LizR wrote:
I rarely get the chance to listen to talks (online or anywhere else) - I
don't suppose there's a paper or something giving same ideas?
Try Boddy, Carroll and Pollack:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0298
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I rarely get the chance to listen to talks (online or anywhere else) - I
don't suppose there's a paper or something giving same ideas?
On 12 March 2015 at 14:07, meekerdb wrote:
> An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in
> Everett's MWI as applied to cosmology and pro
have you ever visited Motl's website? He is still solidly a string kind of guy.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
To: everything-list
Sent: Thu, Mar 12, 2015 11:36 am
Subject: Re: Carroll and Motul
You don't know what you're talking about. Maimon and Carroll are o
You don't know what you're talking about. Maimon and Carroll are on the same side,
pro-MWI. Motul is con-MWI.
I don't know what Carroll's politics are - he doesn't push them like Motul does. But I
regard both of as very competent physicists; which is why I read Motul's blog as well as
Carro
t, on all of this-you could be
well-right.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 9:08 pm
Subject: Carroll and Motul
An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in Everett's
MWI as applied to cosmology and p
An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in Everett's MWI as
applied to cosmology and providing a solution to the Boltzmann brain problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFy6Ben0Ho
Note that toward the end he seems to require a conscious observer to bottom out the
epi
14 matches
Mail list logo
