Dear Bruno:
je suis emu aux larmes. You really took your time and made it enjoyable.
The first that came to my dirty mind was that males are heterosexual
additions of any couple, females of any homosexual combination. Products of
heterosexuals are female, of homosexuals the same gender as
Le 25-avr.-07, à 13:06, Russell Standish a écrit :
I enjoyed the allegory used here. An amusing and also intriguing post!
BTW, garderobe is wardrobe in English, but the French word is so
much more apt.
Thanks.
John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno:
je suis emu aux larmes. You really took
Hi John,
The 24 Feb 2007, à 23:59, John Mikes wrote in parts, to Jason:
Don't tell me please such Brunoistic examples like 1+1 = 2, go out
into the 'life' of a universe (or of ourselves).
All right, let me try to give you a less 'Brunoistic relation among
numbers, if you can imagine this
I enjoyed the allegory used here. An amusing and also intriguing post!
BTW, garderobe is wardrobe in English, but the French word is so
much more apt.
Cheers
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 12:30:39PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All right, let me try to give you a less 'Brunoistic relation among
Le 07-mars-07, à 04:40, Jesse Mazer wrote :
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/
0d5915764b7f3e08/fc56caf79ce58750?#fc56caf79ce58750
Jesse
That is: 14 Mar 2001: Jesse wrote (in part):
A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about TOE's on this
Well thanks Russell. Note that I was not doing a critic. I have the
usual problem with the word philosophy, which in many places (on the
continent means just marxism or the more (postmodern) relativism.
But here I was mainly complaining that sometimes people talk like if
I was proposing
Hi Mark,
Just a preliminary remark before I comment your post. Contrary to what
Russell says in his book, I am not at all a philosopher, I am not
trying to propose a view of the world or a conception of reality. As I
said in the joining post my initial goal was just to understand
molecular
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:37:25PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Mark,
Just a preliminary remark before I comment your post. Contrary to what
Russell says in his book, I am not at all a philosopher, I am not
trying to propose a view of the world or a conception of reality. As I
I
Bruno:
With comp, what holds 'your lot together are the relation between
numbers. The apparent third person infinite regression stops at the
level of those relations. The first person is most probably confronted
with many infinities, but this should not be considered as
problematical.
Mark,
you asked interesting questions, but I think the fundamental ones are still
'out there':
MP:(bold and in bold):
I mean the big and unanswered question is WHERE are numbers?
I would ask (joining your heresy):
1. Where did numbers come from? (an answer may be: They are GOD to believe
in).
2.
Hi Brent,
As you can guess, I am searching an old post of view which I intended
to answer, and then I take opportunity to comment some other one, on
some point which are perhaps somehow important ...
Le 17-mars-07, à 21:19, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 17-mars-07, à
That's all fine and I appreciate the position (once we 'have gotten' to
circumstances providing the idea of a Loeb machine) - what I want to inject
is Dr. Johnson's stone,
which is not 'mind-stuff'' and in his shoe DID HURT (his mind). Not vice
versa.
Please, let it go as a remark outside the
Mark,
I appreciate your post, and I take any feeling, that what is said here
is incompatible with the computationalist hypothesis, as a
misunderstanding of what comp could be, or as an absence of knowledge
of how computer science and mathematical logic force us to revise our
opinion on
Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the
numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an
inherent relation like being relatively prime?
It is an inherent relation like being prime, or being the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the
numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an
inherent relation like being relatively prime?
It is an inherent relation like
John, with your rich linguistic experience you surely recognise
that English [plain or otherwise] is very much a hybrid language
- and surely many who are forced to learn it as a second or
third language would call it 'b*stard' even. And the way that we
native speakers of English use words from
Le 06-mars-07, à 07:44, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :
Thank you for welcoming me Mark,
I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but
not all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put
it we might be able to describe the Why question about physical
Le 06-mars-07, à 09:44, Mark Peaty a écrit :
Thank you Bruno!
You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of
illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire
to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume*
comp and see
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-mars-07, à 09:44, Mark Peaty a écrit :
Thank you Bruno!
You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of
illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire
to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without
benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that
On 3/19/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist,
without
benefit of a
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:25:51PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
One response to this idea is that the non-computational worlds are overrun
with white rabbits, whereas the computational worlds allow the calculation
of a local measure, such as Russell Standish has described, which explains
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have not extracted the measure (nor do I think Russell did to be
honest), but I have extracted the logic of certainty (credibility one)
associated to each hypostasis, and those corresponding to Plotinus
Matter (or our measure
I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without
benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that
non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is, why
should
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent
universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite
arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything).
And while we're at it, why exclude non-mathematical
Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent
universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite
arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything).
And how do things run in Platonia? Do we need temporal
on hold my regret for the greatgrandkids for now.
Regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent
universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite
arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything).
And how do things run in Platonia?
Brent Meeker skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3
pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist.
Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually
agree with you that it doesn't exist - though not
John M skrev:
I looked at your paper, interesting.
One question:
what do you mean by "exist"
(Notably: "does NOT exist)?
We think about it (no matter in how vague terms
and weak understanding), we talk about it, our mind has a place in our
thinking for that term, -
On 3/16/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small
numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all
of them. A theory that just says all integers exist doesn't
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
When it concerns mathematics, I have developped a set of integers that I
myself call unnatural numbers. An unnatural number U is an integer
that is bigger than every natural number N. And the inverse of an
unnatural number (1/U) is more close to zero than any real
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and
other small
numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 -
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is
infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is
zero or almost zero if you consider the Plenitude as God's big lucky
dip, you have to be someone
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is
infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is
zero or almost zero if
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being
the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it is more like
waking up to find that money has miraculously appeared in your
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like
being
the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it
Le 13-mars-07, à 18:55, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying
reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely
doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity.
All right. But note that both String
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron
+
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
components;
Nor by any juxtaposition of
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Infinity is a logically impossible concept.
I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some
early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am
not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 14-mars-07, 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a crit :
Infinity is a logically impossible concept.
I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some
early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am
not convinced. I think that Plotinus'
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an
electron +
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Infinity is a logically impossible concept.
I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some
early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am
not
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : (among others)
Infinity is a logically impossible concept. Infinity Does Not Exist.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb
question.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou
John M wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
Are we back at the Aris-total i.e. the sum considered more than
its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes
more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify.
But components are only part of a reductionist model - it
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But these ideas illustrate a problem with
everything-exists. Everything conceivable, i.e. not
self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But these ideas illustrate a problem with
everything-exists. Everything
On 3/16/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the
identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not
in such or such cartesian picture, even the concrete knots I put in
my pocket. The knots looses its
Bent, Stathis,
Suppose that space is discrete. It has some elementary unit. Let's call it
SU.
Suppose there are 3 of these units out there in a right triangular fashion(
L shape)
Then what is the distance between two distant angles? is it made up of some
integer numbers of space unit? Pythagoras'
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not necessarily. If you draw a
diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a
discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates.
Irrational in the real world
On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer
screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what
Pythagoras'
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the universe is
finite, and the universe itself is finite.
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the universe is
On 3/15/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Yes, space (and
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock
Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists
in some Platonic realm.
*
Brent,
What do you mean by that? I do not get your point.
Anyway I do not insist that it should be realizable. But I have
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock
Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists
in some Platonic realm.
*
Brent,
What do you mean by that? I do not get your point.
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron +
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen,
it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.*
I was trying to mark a distance in real world which is irrational
Tangentially:
Brent: 'doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic
realm ...'
MP: For those who occasionally like a clever and entertaining
read unencumbered by deep social comment can I recommend the
adventures of Ms Thursday Next in 'The Eyre Affair' a novel by
Jasper FForde, and in
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
/Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory.
Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock
Holmes exists in some Platonic realm.
/
Brent,
What do you mean by that?
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron
+ proton because it
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then
proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except that
it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a theorem. So
you can regard a game of chess as a mathematical theorem or even a
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then
proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except
that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a
theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen,
it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.
*
I was
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain
it. What's wrong with that?
Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception)
can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently. You could say
that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it
exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say
that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
/All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in
the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since
calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that
defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable
On 3/11/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... '
MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who
threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of
acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ...
How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making
hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually
testable.
No scientist will ever say there is
.
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb
question.
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
I don't deny
On 3/10/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they
may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into
conclusions upon assumptions.
No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
John M:
Cher Quentin,
let me paraphrase (big):
so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize.
Especially if it sounds helpful.
Well, the basic assumption was more broad than that: it was that general
relativity is a trustworthy theory of gravity. There's plenty
Dear Jesse,
thanks for the cool and objective words.
I take it back (not what I said: I mean the topic) further. Our edifice of
physical science
is a wonderful mental construct, balanced by applied math, all on quantities
fitting the reduced models of historical observations from the hand-ax on.
SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... '
MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who
threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of
acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost which/who's mind
and sensoria will be ever more
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much
Dark
Hi John,
Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations
describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does
the infinity is real (we must still be in accordance about what it means)
is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of
SP:' You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event
horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being
inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.'
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the
in extension of ourselves.
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
SP wrote to BM:
How so? The Many Worlds idea seems to imply that you survive
On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the
]
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM
*Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
SP wrote to BM:
How so? The Many Worlds idea seems to imply that you survive no matter
what. The consequences of natural selection obtain only within worlds which
are law
So are sets of cardinality \aleph_2 or sets of cardinality
\aleph_{\aleph_0}.
On the other hand, one set of cardinality 2^\aleph_0 appears to be big
enough to explain all of observed reality.
Maybe Tegmarkism is going too far...
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:19:03AM +0330, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
Firstly a big thank you to Russell Standish for providing that
incredibly succinct 'bit stream' summary of universal-dovetailer
ontology. [Though only a vocational mathematician would seriously call
it 'very simple' even if it does have less than 1% of Bruno's word count
for his essay on the
On 3/8/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NB: I hope that my imaginary destination in your speculation of possible
post mortem exploits for my erstwhile sceptical soul is not a
post-Freudian slip. I know that many of my contributions to this and
other lists have lacked the erudite
Thank you Bruno!
You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of
illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire
to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume*
comp and see where it leads.
It seems that self-reference and
On 3/6/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation
of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the
ability to *be* the story. But when looking at this as a/n
[infinity^infinity] Many Worlds affair, none of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/6/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation
of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the
ability to *be* the story. But
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:46:32PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in
ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological
continuity; that is,
Russell Standish wrote:
Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why
Occams Razor paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite
of it being around on this list since 1999, and in spite of it
On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why
Occams Razor paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite
of it being
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:30:57PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why
*All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the
equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is
easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an
instantaneous state requires uncountable information.*
What about the
Hello Moshen and welcome.
I think it is a very good question, and succinctly put.
I have been trying to ask the same question and get a plain-English
answer, but without success. Of course, I could be missing 'the point'
too, and it wouldn't be the first time by a long shot. :-)
If there was
Mark Peaty wrote:
Hello Moshen and welcome.
I think it is a very good question, and succinctly put.
I have been trying to ask the same question and get a plain-English
answer, but without success. Of course, I could be missing 'the point'
too, and it wouldn't be the first time by a
Jason, after Danny's very interesting treatise your reply gave me a clue I
completely misunderstood so far. As i wrote to Brent, my vocabulary is not
your
vocabulary and the meanings mix up. Simulation emerged to me as 'copying',
while
you lit up the little lamp to consider it as 'forming a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I will try. I will, by the same token, answer Mohsen question here:
Mohsen:
I don't know if in the hypothesis of simulation, the conflict of
Countable and Uncountable has been considered.
...
In particular,
On 3/6/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno's answer is right, but not necessarily the easiest to
understand. A very simple way of putting it is to consider sampling a
random bitstream. Every time a bit is sampled, the Multiverse branches
with the observed bit being 0 or 1
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:48:40PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/6/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno's answer is right, but not necessarily the easiest to
understand. A very simple way of putting it is to consider sampling a
random bitstream. Every time a bit
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
