Hi,
Le Dimanche 20 Août 2006 05:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
What about an inputless computer program, running deterministically
like a recording. Would that count as a program at all,
It would be a trivial case.
Trivial does not mean false.
It
Le 19-août-06, à 15:36, Günther wrote:
The existence of numbers is not like the existence of objects, and I
don't
think that most mathematical Platonists would say that it is.
I agree with them. We have to distinguish many forms of internal or
epistemological existence, build from the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter Jones writes:
Is it possible that we are currently actors in a single, deterministic,
non-branching
computer program, with the illusion of free will and if-then contingency
in general
being due to the fact that we don't know the details of how
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
Le Dimanche 20 Août 2006 05:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
What about an inputless computer program, running deterministically
like a recording. Would that count as a program at all,
It would be a trivial case.
Hi Peter,
I am no more sure you read the post, nor am I sure you really search
understanding.
Le 18-août-06, à 17:38, 1Z a écrit :
That is an explanation of mind-independence, not of existence.
The anti-Platonist (e.g. the formalist) can claim that
the truth of mathematical statments is
Let me think aloud,
Plotinus's terms:
Primary Hypostases:
1) the ONE
2) the Divine Intellect
3) the all-soul
Secondary hypostases:
4) Intelligible Matter
5) Sensible Matter
With the UDA, you can already try
Primary Hypostases:
1) truth
2) third person communicable truth
3)
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Peter,
I am no more sure you read the post, nor am I sure you really search
understanding.
Le 18-août-06, à 17:38, 1Z a écrit :
That is an explanation of mind-independence, not of existence.
The anti-Platonist (e.g. the formalist) can claim that
the truth
Bruno
I'm absolutely sincere in what I've said about approaching comp in
'as if' mode. But at the same time I've hoped from the beginning
that we could make explicit the choices that motivate our different
ontic starting assumptions. Are there perhaps irreconcilable issues of
style or
Peter Jones writes:
Computer programmes contain conditional (if-then) statements. A given
run of
the programme will in genreal not explore every branch. yet the
unexplored
branches are part of the programme. A branch of an if-then statement
that is
not executed on a particular run of a
Right!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:18:18 +0200
Hi,
Le Dimanche 20 Août 2006 05:17, Stathis Papaioannou a
Bruno
(BTW please delete any previous version of this posted in error.)
I'm absolutely sincere in what I've said about approaching comp in 'as
if' mode. But at the same time I've hoped from the beginning that we
could make explicit the choices that motivate our different ontic
starting
Peter Jones writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter Jones writes:
Is it possible that we are currently actors in a single, deterministic,
non-branching
computer program, with the illusion of free will and if-then
contingency in general
being due to the fact that we
It seems to me that there are two main sticking points in the discussions on
several list threads in recent weeks. One is computationalism: is it right or
wrong?
This at least is straightforward in that it comes down to a question of faith,
in the
final analysis, as to whether you would
13 matches
Mail list logo
