Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 1:36 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Its a oligarchy in the form of a plutocracy. I sometimes wonder if it > hasn't been this way since the Civil War, > Plutocracy is nothing new and so cannot be the root cause of the

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

. -Original Message- From: Lawrence Crowell To: Everything List Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 8:22 pm Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy You need to remember that both the Dems and the Reps take campaign money from the same financial

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

mo Menezes To: Everything List Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 7:45 am Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy #yiv9332129206 p.yiv9332129206MsoNormal, #yiv9332129206 p.yiv9332129206MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}Isn't this an international mailing list for

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

> So maybe the human race can survive the USA becoming a failed state, and > maybe it cannot. So you have to ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky > today? Well do you Telmo? We both bet on the MWI so... > >> >> *> My point is: do we really need to drag American politics into every

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

On 1/5/2022 4:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Am Di, 4. Jan 2022, um 18:03, schrieb John Clark: On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:09 AM Telmo Menezes wrote: /> "Totalitarianism" is a type of regime where any sort of private experience is ideologically opposed to, and where the state has

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:34 AM Telmo Menezes wrote: >> And President Donald Trump publicly said he fell in love with North >> Korea's murderous dictator Kim Jong-un and waxed poetic about how >> beautiful the letters Kim sent to him were. > > > *> Yes, I also strongly disapprove of Trump and

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

Am Di, 4. Jan 2022, um 18:03, schrieb John Clark: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:09 AM Telmo Menezes wrote: > __ > >> *> "Totalitarianism" is a type of regime where any sort of private >> experience is ideologically opposed to, and where the state has total >> control over the lives of its

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 8:22 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > You need to remember that both the Dems and the Reps take campaign money > from the same financial and corporate entities. They are both beholden to > the same people, as latter day forms of vassals. The

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

. The whole system is really F#*'d to the core. LC On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 5:42:06 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > From The New York Times: > > The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy > > What’s often called the crisis of Ame

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:09 AM Telmo Menezes wrote: *> "Totalitarianism" is a type of regime where any sort of private > experience is ideologically opposed to, and where the state has total > control over the lives of its citizens. In other words, in a totalitarian > regime there is no such

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

And if I found I wasn't interested in your post I'd just delete it, I > wouldn't take the time to write another post protesting it, and I certainly > wouldn't *repeat every single word *of the post that I'm protesting about. Nice sophistry part 2. Telmo > > John K Clark > >

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

it, and I certainly wouldn't *repeat every single word *of the post that I'm protesting about. John K Clark Am Di, 4. Jan 2022, um 12:41, schrieb John Clark: >From The New York Times: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy What’s often called the crisis

Re: NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

ucceeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy > > What’s often called the crisis of American democracy is the result not of > too much democracy but of too little. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/us-democracy-constitution.html?smid=em-share > > > -- > Y

NYTimes.com: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy

>From The New York Times: The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy What’s often called the crisis of American democracy is the result not of too much democracy but of too little. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/us-democracy-constitution.html?smid

Re: If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists as a nazi.

> On 5 Dec 2020, at 11:09, PGC wrote: > > Yes, it is the season. > > "So if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus both exists and is a nazi." > > And if the sentence above were true, then Santa Claus would exist and be a > nazi. But it doesn't say "It

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists as a nazi.

Yes, it is the season. "So if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus both exists and is a nazi." And if the sentence above were true, then Santa Claus would exist and be a nazi. *But it doesn't say "It is false* that if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus both exists and i

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

t; Bruno > > > > That's certainly better than MWI. I think so, especially that we get both the wave and the collapse has personal (epistemic, doxastic) appearance. We just need to believe that proposition like (3 divides 9 ) are true, or false. Bruno > > @philipth

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 15 Oct 2019, at 18:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/15/2019 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > But never mind, especially that with Mechanism, there are no world at > all, just “numbers”, together with + and *. > > > Bruno > > > That's certainly better than MWI. @philipthrift -- You received this message

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/15/2019 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2. If the person there

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 21:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/14/2019 11:42 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> Which is the QBist interpretation of QM. [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay >> “theology”] >>

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/14/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:06, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: And with finite

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/14/2019 11:42 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.   [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology”] Brent MWI is QB on steroids. I'd say it's MWI plus humility. Brent -- You received

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > Which is the QBist interpretation of QM. [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay > “theology”] > > Brent > > > MWI is QB on steroids. @philpthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/14/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction between recurrences and

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: > > > And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: >>> >>> And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction >>> between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. >>> >> >> Yes, but there will also

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 04-10-2019 23:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 04-10-2019 23:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is a well enough explained question. LC Energy conservation is not violated

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:31, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Oct 2019,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 06-10-2019 12:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined energy in which case computing the weighted

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:55:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra > > wrote: > >> > >>> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > >>>

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the expectation value is

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra wrote: > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: > > > >> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > >> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > >>

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 4,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Oct 2019,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> The question is about

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. > > Cosmology assumes the quantum at a

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 19:45, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday,

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is a well enough explained question. LC Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total energy, you have to weigh

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. > > > Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a > collapse makes the less

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

/medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a > > <https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a> > > with a lo

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> > Why would the energy of a branch be

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:03:59 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: > > The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will > need to be computed by this

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM smitra wrote: > On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably > > the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the > > energy in each branch according to the Born weight.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is a well enough explained question. LC Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >>> This really is a well enough explained question. >>> >>> LC >>> >>> Energy conservation is not violated

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> This really is a well enough explained question. >> >> LC >> >> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total >>> energy, you have to

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

code >> >> *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s >> play the coin flip game!* >> >> >> https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a &

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Right. It's a perfectly good question that Sabine doesn't answer. (Of course if there is one world, there is no problem. But no reasonable physicist believes in many worlds. They are deluded by math.) @philipthrift On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:55 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > This really is a well enough explained question. > > LC > > Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total >> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

This really is a well enough explained question. LC On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... > > David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 > > Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

ng-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a > > with a loop of 100. > > if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds. > > In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result. > > @philipthrift > > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 201

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

-2319bb293c6a with a loop of 100. if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds. In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result. @philipthrift On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > &g

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 03-10-2019 19:44, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it > > can't even contain copies of the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it > > can't even contain copies of the

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG It it's probability were zero would you

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... >> >> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 >> >> Can't one of you please tell us dummies

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... > > David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 > > Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy? > > None of

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >> branched off world requires no new energy?* >> > > > >> Can somebody explain to

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift wrote: * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy?* > >> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would > be conserved on the cosmological scale in

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:36:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >> branched off world requires no new energy?* > > > Can somebody explain to this dummy why

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy?* Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be conserved on the cosmological scale in a

Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new branched off world requires no new energy? None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but significant question.

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

elsinki on June 11 2018 at 14:36:09 Coordinated Universal Time and if Mr. He > is duplicated then the fact that there are 2 answers to your question is no > more metaphysical or indeterminate or profound than the fact that there and 2 > correct answers to the question “What is th

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

cing Helsinki on June 11 2018 at 14:36:09 Coordinated Universal Time and if Mr. He is duplicated then the fact that there are 2 answers to your question is no more metaphysical or indeterminate or profound than the fact that there and 2 correct answers to the question “What is the value of X in this quadratic eq

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:56, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>>​that is one (of many) problems with your “proof”. You start off by > assuming a physical mechanism can duplicate everything > > ​>​False. I start from

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

2000 > years ago got surprisingly close to the mark. But his arguments do not > depend on those texts at all. Right. Except for Lao-Ze, and a bit of Plato and Plotinus, it is only thanks to computer science that I realise those people where close to the mark. If mechanism is true, that is hardl

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​that is one (of many) problems with your “proof”. You start off by >> assuming a physical mechanism can duplicate everything > > *​>​False. I start from the assumption that I can survive from a digital > emulation of my brain at some

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 16:26, John Clark wrote: > > > > > and didn't even know where the sun went at night. You've recommended many > > many books on this list but only a very small number of them were written > > by authors who

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

main within the scientific > >> method. In the past I pointed out exactly what those similarities and > >> differences were, I will repeat them now: > > * The soul is non material and so is information. > * It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

ow "you" also means the man who is currently >> experiencing M and remembers experiencing H yesterday. And please don't >> rebut with your standard "from the 1p" rubber stamp reply unless it is made >> clear which "THE 1p" is being referred to. > > > *​

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

erences were, I will repeat them now: > > * The soul is non material and so is information. > > * It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and > the same is true for information. > > *The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the >

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

bers experiencing H yesterday. And > please don't rebut with your standard "from the 1p" rubber stamp reply unless > it is made clear which "THE 1p" is being referred to. That is simply not true. The first person “I” means always the H-guy, even when his expe

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> > * The soul is non material and so is information. > * It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the > same is true for information. > *The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the > same situation is true for informati

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> *​* > *I know perfectly well what the personal pronoun “you” will mean, as its > meaning will not change.* > Of course it will change. Today "you" means the man who is currently experiencing H, tomorrow "you" means the man who is

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

d differences were, I will repeat them now: * The soul is non material and so is information. * It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for information. *The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is tr

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> On 6 Jun 2018, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 6/6/2018 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that whatever >> you will live is a definite unique experience, of W or of M. You lost >> unicity in the 3p view, indeed, but

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> > ​But as a ​computationalist​ YOU don't know today what the goddamn personal > pronoun "YOU​" will mean tomorrow if YOU are going to be duplicated today. Why? I know perfectly well what the personal pronoun “you” will mean, as its meaning will not change. What is true i

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

Just wondering, John.  Did you learn capitalization at the Wharton School of Business? Brent On 6/6/2018 3:39 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: ​>​ /in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​ > *in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that whatever > you will live is a definite unique experience* > ​But as a ​ computationalist ​ YOU don't know today what the goddamn personal pronoun "*YOU*​" will mean tomorrow

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On 6/6/2018 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that whatever you will live is a definite unique experience, of W or of M. You lost unicity in the 3p view, indeed, but as human survivor, you keep it, and feel to be only one of the two

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> On 4 Jun 2018, at 17:04, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>>​There is absolutely nothing unique about that silly personal diary of > yours and there is nothing unique about your memories either because because >

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> There is absolutely nothing unique about that silly personal diary of >> yours and there is nothing unique about your memories either because >> because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED and that is what the word "duplicated" >> means. > > >

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

m and that's why I get so impatient with that moronic > diary, it serves no purpose and just needlessly clutters up a already > convoluted thought experiment. I get it, they are in different environments > and so formed different memories I don't need the damn diary to figure that > o

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

ith that moronic diary, it serves no purpose and just needlessly clutters up a already convoluted thought experiment. I get it, they are in different environments and so formed different memories I don't need the damn diary to figure that out. > *> By consulting their diaries, or the

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> On 1 Jun 2018, at 19:52, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>> The 1p-you is defined by the sequence of memories personally accessible​ > > >> That does not define a unique object if the world contains 1p-you > >>

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> >>> *The 1p-you is defined by the sequence of memories personally >>> accessible​* >> >> > >> That does not define a unique object if the world contains 1p-you >> duplicating machines as it does in your thought experiment , > > > >*How

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

> On 30 May 2018, at 21:56, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > ​> ​The 1p-you is defined by the sequence of memories personally accessible > > ​That does not define a unique object if the world contains 1p-you

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The 1p-you is defined by the sequence of memories personally accessible > ​ That does not define a unique object if the world contains 1p-you duplicating machines as it does in your thought experiment ​, therefore it is nonsensical

  1   2   >