Peter Jones writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter Jones writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't know if block universe theories are true or not, but the
subjective
passage of time is not an argument against them. If mind is
computation, do
you believe that a
David Nyman:
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations
of
agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statistics) of
Colin Hales wrote:
There is no dualism here. The simplest solution is a monism of a posited
structural primitive, say, S(.). The universe is a structure of organised
S(.). One type and one type only. The structure itself is simply and
necessarily a hierarchically organised massive collection
David Nyman:
Colin Hales wrote:
There is no dualism here. The simplest solution is a monism of a
posited
structural primitive, say, S(.). The universe is a structure of
organised
S(.). One type and one type only. The structure itself is simply and
necessarily a hierarchically organised
Le 13-août-06, à 19:17, Rich Winkel a écrit :
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept
provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light
of new
Le 13-août-06, à 23:48, George Levy a écrit :
I think also implies the concept of sanity. Unless you assume the
first step I think and that you are sane, you can't take any rational
and conscious second step and have any rational and conscious thought
process. You wouldn't be able to hold
Le 14-août-06, à 01:04, David Nyman a écrit :
There is another aspect, which I've been musing about again since my
most recent exchanges with Peter. This is that if one is to take
seriously (and I do) 'structural' or 'block' views such as MWI, it
seems to me that whatever is behaving
George Levy wrote (to Brent Meeker):
Brent: As I understand him, Bruno agrees with Russell that I is a construct or
inference.
George: I think you are right. Bruno is not as extreme as I am but I am not sure exactly where he stands. He may be non-committed or he may not know how to reconcile
Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
mean
it must be true that there is a number equal to the sum of its divsors
independent of you. Do you mean independent only in the sense that
others
will know 6 is
Le 14-août-06, à 17:44, David Nyman wrote :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It just means that I (Bruno) believes that Bruno (I) is not so
important in the sense that if I die, a perfect number will still
either exist or not exist. I do interpret Penrose's mathematical
platonism in that way, and I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Stathis, Brent, and List:
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not really!)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
David Nyman wrote:
1Z wrote:
On 8/13/06, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but as I say, I can't help 'taking
personally' the existent thing from which I and all persons are
emanating. I think, imaginatvely, that if one pictures a 'block
universe', Platonia, MW, or any non-process
Hi,
1) The computationalist hypothesis (comp),
This is the hypothesis that I am a digital machine in the
quasi-operational sense that I can survive through an artificial
digital body/brain. I make it precise by adding Church thesis and some
amount of Arithmetical Realism (without which
Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks and add my quip to them
one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the listG.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks and add my quip to them
one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the listG.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
So, I can give 'meaning' to an 'indexical 1st-person Bruno'
instantiating the *idea* of 'a perfect number', because its 'indexical
existence' is part of this 'Bruno'.
I think the only way you can do that is with David instead of Bruno.
It seems to me that when you
Hello to the List :-)
The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
first sight, but only because we look at this with human
eyes.
1) Mathematical
Bruno Marchal wrote:
1), 2), 3), 4) are theorem in the comp theory. Note that the
zero-person point of view will appear also to be unnameable. Names
emerges through the third person pint of view.
I'm beginning to see that, unnameability apart, it's the 'indexicality'
of the zero-person point
Thanks, Peter
John
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks
and add my quip to them
one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the
listG.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Perspectival Ubiquity
From the perspective of any one instance of S(.) within the structure, no
matter how huge and complex it is, there is a 'perspective' view of any
other point in the structure. That 'view' is the view that is 'as-if' you
walked all the way
George:
I enjoyed your wits, in Hungarian we call that
to chase one's brain.
I am also happy that you use sane instead of
normal because the norm is insane.
Please do not cut this line (style) of yours!
John Mikes
--- George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le
With apologies:
In my long post I referred to happenings after the BB
as ...in the 10^42 or ^32 sec of the first sec...
Of course I meant 10^-42 and 10^-32 first
sec-fractions.
John Mikes
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
Bruno:
What is - 6 - ?
Perfect number, you say.
If I do NOT count - or quantize, does it have ANY meaning at all?
I don't see sense in saying it is more than 5 and less than 7 if I do not
know the meaning of 5 and 7 as well. And of 6 of course.
Without quantification, what does 6 mean? Why
David Nyman:
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Perspectival Ubiquity
From the perspective of any one instance of S(.) within the structure, no
matter how huge and complex it is, there is a 'perspective' view of any
other point in the structure. That 'view' is the view that is 'as-if'
you
walked
1Z wrote:
What does access to information mean ? In a dynamic
universe, it means causality. In a Barbour-style universe
it means some nows coincidentally contain patterns representing other
nows
just as , in a world consisting of every possible picture, there will
be pictures containing
LZ:
Colin Hales wrote:
The underlying structure unifies the whole
system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the
structurevia the deep structure right down into the very fabric of
space.
In a very real way the existence of 'mysterious observer dependence' is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
mean
it must be true that there is a number equal to the sum of its divsors
independent of you. Do you mean independent only in the sense that
others
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno
Good to see this. First off some grandmotherly-ish questions:
1) The computationalist hypothesis (comp),
This is the hypothesis that I am a digital machine in the
quasi-operational sense that I can survive through an artificial
digital body/brain. I make it
LZ:
Colin Hales wrote:
The underlying structure unifies the
whole system. Of course you'll
get some impact via the causality of the
structurevia the deep structure right down into
the very fabric of space.
In a very real way the existence of
'mysterious observer
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-août-06, à 19:17, Rich Winkel a écrit :
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept
provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory
1Z wrote:
What does access to information mean ? In a dynamic
universe, it means causality. In a Barbour-style universe
it means some nows coincidentally contain patterns representing other
nows
just as , in a world consisting of every possible picture, there will
be pictures containing
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
...
If
32 matches
Mail list logo
