On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Also some serious mathematicians are finitists.
The Meaning of Pure Mathematics
Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 18, No.
3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 315-320Published by: SpringerStable URL:
Hi Bruno
Im not all that wrapped by Popper's method possibly because I have a background
in the soft sciences where I think it is much harder to devise falsifiable
statements. Other minds being unobservable and all that...
I like Popper's critiques of other thinkers. His destruction of Hegel
On 19 Sep 2013, at 16:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 21:45, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 11:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:43:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:14:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Computers don't use symbols.
?
They
On 19 Sep 2013, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:55:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:26:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
snip
Beyond the ambiguities, comp put
On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical,
Yes, Landauer is a major
On 19 Sep 2013, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:
Also some serious mathematicians are finitists.
The Meaning of Pure Mathematics
Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: Journal of Philosophical Logic,
Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 315-320Published by:
SpringerStable URL:
On 20 Sep 2013, at 00:10, LizR wrote:
On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer
On 9/20/2013 2:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Also some serious mathematicians are finitists.
The Meaning of Pure Mathematics
Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 18, No.
3 (Aug., 1989), pp.
Hi Chris,
On 20 Sep 2013, at 02:45, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
It doesn't take a genius to realize that if a idea isn't getting
anywhere, that is to say if it doesn't produce new interesting
ideas, your time would be better spent doing something else.
Whats with this idea that the
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations must
use energy and generate heat. And what's the difference between a physical
process and a non-physical process anyway?
I thought it was only erasing the results
On 9/20/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But monkey's fetus seems able to dream of trees before seeing them
Do you have a citation for that?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not falsifiable, of
course. That's a common point with consciousness here-and-now, which is not
falsifiable nor doubtable, yet true (except for the zombies of course). OK?
I think that
On 9/20/2013 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process,
On 9/20/2013 10:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations
must use
energy and generate heat. And what's the difference between a physical
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
its at the core of Popper's view that theories should aim to be productive
Wow, theories should be productive, only a super genius could figure that
out!
in making falsifiable predictions and you are only regurgitating that
On Friday, September 20, 2013 10:14:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:43:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Chris,
An article in Nature last year presents a calculation of the theoretical
minimum energy required to erase a bit - independent of the computer:
Antoine Bérut, Artak Arakelyan, Artyom Petrosyan, Sergio Ciliberto, Raoul
Dillenschneider + et al.
Nature 483, 187-189
John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
4:00 PM (8 minutes ago)
to everything-list
Dear Russell,
the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book
(posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952
image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM
A book that presents Bohm's QM sympathetically is Quantum Mechanics by James
T. Cushing.
Brent
On 9/20/2013 1:00 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Russell,
the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book (posthumus
D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his
On Friday, September 20, 2013 10:39:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:55:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013
On 20 Sep 2013, at 11:46, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
Im not all that wrapped by Popper's method possibly because I have a
background in the soft sciences where I think it is much harder to
devise falsifiable statements. Other minds being unobservable and
all that...
I like Popper's
Interesting. Do you know what assumptions went into their analysis?
I would think that this is a medium dependent value; i.e. what underlying
medium is the relying on to hold its logical state. Did the researchers attempt
to figure out the minimum scale system (say an electron spin for example
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical,
Yes, Landauer is a major proponents of that idea. If that is true, then
computationalism is false.
Bullshit.
With comp, a physical process is the result of the first
Seems like the Pangea hypothesis might have gotten some evidence... wouldn't
say this is conclusive though, but it is intriguing.
-Chris
Scientists claim discovery of life coming to Earth from space
Scientists from the University of Sheffield believe they have found life
arriving to Earth from
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform,
theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like,
but the less energy you use the slower the calculation.
How does that square with the increased (well measured) energy efficiency per
fundamental
Chris,
It's the Landauer argument relating energy to information, as Frank wrote.
There is a summary article in the same issue of Nature:
Philip Ball, The unavoidable cost of computation revealed, Nature (March 07,
2012). Ball references the analysis mentioned in my last post; It's the
It's a long time since I read Wholeness but I seem to recall coming to
the conclusion that Bohm's version was like the MWI with one world singled
out (somehow) to be real.
Or am I getting mixed up? Was it him who had the idea of pilot waves ?
--
You received this message because you are
Dear Russell,
the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book
(posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952
image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM and
Relativity...
I have a - sort of - high level science-reportage: by
On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not
falsifiable, of course. That's a common point with consciousness
here-and-now, which is not falsifiable nor
On 9/20/2013 1:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform, theoretically you
can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like, but the less energy you use
the slower the calculation.
How does that square with the increased (well
Current software is very energy efficient -- and on so many levels. I worked
developing code used in the Windows Smartphone and it was during that time that
I had to first think hard about the energy efficiency dimension in computing --
as measured by useful work done per unit of energy. The
Thanks, just read the article An interesting experiment and reaffirmation of
the second law of thermodynamics in the realm of information processing (or
erasure). Will need a little time to digest it. I can certainly see how it
would show up - when measured within the constraints of an
Okay I am beginning to get the reasoning... some heat must be lost, inevitably
dispersed, increasing entropy when the bit of information contained by the
system is erased. Am still not clear how Landauer computed the formula kT ln 2
-Chris
From: meekerdb
On 9/20/2013 3:50 PM, LizR wrote:
It's a long time since I read Wholeness but I seem to recall coming to the conclusion
that Bohm's version was like the MWI with one world singled out (somehow) to be real.
Or am I getting mixed up? Was it him who had the idea of pilot waves ?
DeBroglie
On 9/20/2013 3:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not
falsifiable, of
course. That's a common
On 9/20/2013 4:40 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Current software is very energy efficient -- and on so many levels. I worked developing
code used in the Windows Smartphone and it was during that time that I had to first
think hard about the energy efficiency dimension in computing -- as measured
Chris, Brent and meekerdb,
While we have been considering optimizing the efficiency of circuitry and
software, we neglected that while talking on the smartphone, 1/2 of the total
power budget goes to radiation from the smartphone antenna - about 2 Watts as I
remember. That will drain a
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform,
theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like,
but the less energy you use the slower the calculation.
How does
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:25 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/20/2013 4:40 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Current
T
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L.W. Sterritt
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: L.W. Sterritt
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Chris, Brent and meekerdb,
While
Also, we have a requirement for the antenna to be low-gain, omnidirectional
because we don't know where the towers are. So most of what we transmit is
lost.
LW
On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
T
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
42 matches
Mail list logo
