On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is
you the guy who remembers being John Clark
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike you, I fortunately do not have the time to dig up your ad hominems.
Well, I sure didn't have to dig very far to find your ad hominems! In just
one short post you say: I'm a bigot. I'm a
Yes it's me... you're the one who is bragging for **years** about useless
confusion that only exists in your mind.
Quentin
2013/10/26 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could always
2013/10/26 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could always reciprocate Quentin's courtesy and [...]
Courtesy? This is the fellow who said:
Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something,
On 10/26/2013 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
...
It is:
3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical computations.
Not at all. That would be the case if the goal was doing physics, but the goal was only
to formulate
On 26 Oct 2013, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is.
Is you
On 10/26/2013 10:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Brent,
Section 3b of ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf ) seems to also answer some
of the questions you posed recently regarding superposition in MWI:
B. “It doesn’t explain why we don’t perceive weird
superpositions”
That’s right! The
On 24 Oct 2013, at 21:46, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
That will not increase precision unless you give a name (and NOT a
pronoun!) to the guy who wrote the diary, if its Mr. The Guy Who Is
Experiencing Helsinki On October
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is
you the guy who remembers being John Clark
2013/10/25 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is
you
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the
probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?)
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because
however many copies of you
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember
having been in Helsinki.
Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will
see BOTH Moscow AND Washington.
Fine, then
2013/10/25 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the
probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?)
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who
2013/10/25 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will
remember having been in Helsinki.
Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you
will see
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Fine, if the MWI is true and if the same definition of you is used as
Bruno's definition, namely that you concerns the guy(s) who will
remember having been in Helsinki, then it is beyond dispute that you
will see BOTH
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because
however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet
What does it have to do with prediction and probability ?
In the MWI if
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because
however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet
On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the
probability of
*you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?)
In the MWI John Clark
On 10/25/2013 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will
remember
having been in Helsinki.
Fine, then obviously
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about
the probability of
*you* (who is you ?
On 23 Oct 2013, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Note, John, that you just go from P(W) = P(M) = 0, to the post you
sent before (and that I commented), to P(W) = P(M) = 1.
That's because it depends entirely about
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That will not increase precision unless you give a name (and NOT a
pronoun!) to the guy who wrote the diary, if its Mr. The Guy Who Is
Experiencing Helsinki On October 21 2013 then the probability he will
experience
2013/10/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That will not increase precision unless you give a name (and NOT a
pronoun!) to the guy who wrote the diary, if its Mr. The Guy Who Is
Experiencing Helsinki On October 21
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I'd only ever seen numerical simulations of it, but consulting the
ever-handy Wikipedia, it looks like the percolation threshold is given
by the inverse of the average node degree for Erdos-Renyi random
graphs.
On 22 Oct 2013, at 20:56, Quentin Anciaux wrote to John Clark
(I comment both)
2013/10/22 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/21/2013 9:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
Let me put it in this way: accepting that P(W)
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/21/2013 12:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb
On 21 Oct 2013, at 18:16, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
When John Clark asks who is you? Bruno responds that he could
no more answer that question than he could square a circle.
The quote, please.
John Clark will be happy to:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Nevertheless,
you do think there must be some strong indicators why a continuous
(well at least local changes only) conscious path exists between all
conscious states. What is
Russell,
Out of curiosity, is that link density of ~62% derived from 1 - (e^-1) ?
The concept seems related, as it is also the proportion of hash values that
can be reached by hashing all possible hash values (for a good hash
function with a uniform distribution).
Jason
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at
On 10/22/2013 1:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't choose to simulate
anything.
The mind has the tools available to generate any experience it wants, somewhat like a
lucid dream but one where you exercise complete control over everything in
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 1:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't choose to simulate
anything.
The mind has the tools available to generate any experience it wants,
somewhat like a lucid
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/21/2013 9:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
Let me put it in this way: accepting that P(W) = P(M) =1/2, with W
and M describing the first person experiences of the respective copies, do
you accept that P(M) = P(W) = 1/2,
2013/10/22 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/21/2013 9:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
Let me put it in this way: accepting that P(W) = P(M) =1/2, with W
and M describing the first person experiences of the
On 10/22/2013 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 1:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't choose to simulate
anything.
The
I'd only ever seen numerical simulations of it, but consulting the
ever-handy Wikipedia, it looks like the percolation threshold is given
by the inverse of the average node degree for Erdos-Renyi random
graphs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_graph). Mind you,
Wikipedia does seem to be
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/22/2013 1:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't choose
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
When John Clark asks who is you? Bruno responds that he could no
more answer that question than he could square a circle.
The quote, please.
John Clark will be happy to: On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno
2013/10/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
When John Clark asks who is you? Bruno responds that he could no
more answer that question than he could square a circle.
The quote, please.
John Clark will be happy
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't give a damn about predictions, correct ones or incorrect ones,
because they have nothing to do with what we were talking about, the sense
of self. I only care if I remember being John Clark yesterday, if I do
2013/10/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't give a damn about predictions, correct ones or incorrect ones,
because they have nothing to do with what we were talking about, the sense
of self. I only care if I
On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the first person views/memories are not integrated, they are not
experienced
by
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the first person views/memories are not integrated, they
On 10/21/2013 9:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
Let me put it in this way: accepting that P(W) = P(M) =1/2, with W and M
describing the first person experiences of the respective copies, do you
accept that
P(M) = P(W) = 1/2,
No I don't accept that, not if P(W) is the probability that
On 10/21/2013 12:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 19 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/19/2013 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The base problem disappears when you take 1) the universal wave,
and 2) accept the idea that all states of the subsystem are
relative indexical defined by the base in which some self-aware
subparts
On 19 Oct 2013, at 23:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/19/2013 10:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories are not a necessary requirement for experience
On 10/19/2013 11:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But such a path that exists, and in the case that all paths are explored
All things follow from a false premise.
Only when actually proved to be false will everything actually follows. You can't
speculate on the falsity of e proposition to say
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:42PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 02:24, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Across the many worlds you will find a nearly continuous spectrum of
persons from those just like you to those like someone else, and
everything
in between. Any suggestion of a
On 20 Oct 2013, at 09:33, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:42PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19,
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 02:33:54AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:33:42PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
If there is anything in reality that knows what it is like to be you, and
knows
On 21 October 2013 12:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:57:00AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2013 11:54, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What I was saying was that if everything exists, then Jupiter brains
who
have experienced
On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the first person views/memories are not integrated, they are not experienced by the
Jupiter brain, only instantiated, and it learns nothing of what it is like to *be* the
beings it discovers.
?? How is an experience instantiated without being
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the first person views/memories are not integrated, they are not
experienced by the Jupiter brain, only instantiated, and it learns nothing
of what it is like to *be* the
On 10/18/2013 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
*On
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 10/18/2013 11:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM,
On 19 Oct 2013, at 08:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 11:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at
On 19 Oct 2013, at 09:30, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
convoluted with periods of amnesia,
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories are not a necessary requirement for experience and thus are
not a requirement for
On 19 Oct 2013, at 10:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
As I've said many times, being deterministic and being predictable is
NOT the same thing.
There is not *uncertainty* from the 3rd POV... nothing, zip, nada (both
event happen) and it is fully deterministic.
2013/10/19 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
As I've said many times, being deterministic and being predictable is
NOT the same thing.
There is not *uncertainty* from the 3rd POV... nothing, zip, nada (both
event
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories are not a necessary requirement for experience and thus are not
a requirement for subjective continuation and survival. You survive
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 09:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb
On 10/19/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/19/2013 1:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/19/2013 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The base problem disappears when you take 1) the universal wave, and 2) accept the idea
that all states of the subsystem are relative indexical defined by the base in which
some self-aware subparts (local universal machine) can develop and remember
On 10/19/2013 10:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories are not a necessary requirement for experience
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 01:53:14PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
But why are self-aware subparts necessarily classical? That's was
my question that started this thread. Why can't there be a
self-aware subpart that is aware of the wave-functions projection
onto other bases in which it is not even
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 10:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Amnesia = gap in the chain.
Memories are not a
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2013 10:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
branching, etc. Any state eventually leads to every other state.
Sounds like wishful thinking.
I will accept that when you can point to a computational state not
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Across the many worlds you will find a nearly continuous spectrum of
persons from those just like you to those like someone else, and everything
in between. Any suggestion of a discrete border that defines where Brent
ends and
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:02:14PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Across the many worlds you will find a nearly continuous spectrum of
persons from those just like you to those like someone else, and
everything
in
On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 09:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the present problem under
special relativity: If we exist in many times across space time, why do we
find ourselves in this
-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: For John Clark
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:04:27 +
Hi Jason
Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person.
The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience
isn't indexical, its just me.
This page offers some examples
the
problems to be?
Not at the moment. As i said, Im not sure what to make of any of it.
regards.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:04:58 +1300
Subject: Re: For John Clark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
. As i said, Im not sure what to make of any of it.
Okay, that is fair.
Jason
regards.
--
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:04:58 +1300
Subject: Re: For John Clark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason
On 18 Oct 2013, at 04:17, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 15:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Immediately after teleportation there will be uncertainty because
you are no longer sure of your location but are sure that you have
been duplicated and sent to one place or the
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the present problem under
special relativity: If we exist in many times
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 5:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
From the paper:
What of the crucial question: should Alice1 feel uncertain? Why,
Alice1 is a
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the physical -
at least
not unless he can solve the basis problem.
Could you do me a favor and explain what the basis problem is in a way that a 6th grader
could understand? I've
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
From the paper:
What of the crucial
2013/10/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section
4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
From
On 10/18/2013 10:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference
On 10/18/2013 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1
2013/10/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/18/2013 10:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your
On 18 Oct 2013, at 19:48, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section
On 10/18/2013 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The key result is that incompleteness makes the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge (the
only one I know capable of doing justice to the metaphysical antic dream argument) given
a classical theory of knowledge (S4Grz) which X1* is an important
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even
say in truth there is only one I
In your theory a person is a chain of experiences, so different chain
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
101 - 200 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
