On 22 July, 17:15, David Nyman wrote:
> Dinna fash yursel laddie,
trnaslation: Faut pas te facher.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to eve
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> The way I look at it there is knowledge we gain from perception, including the
> inner perception of logical and mathematical facts. We make up theories that
> unify and explain these perceptions and which extend beyond what we perceive.
S
On 23 Jul 2009, at 13:31, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>> These universes are
>>> universes with a two-dimensional space and a one-dimensional time.
>>> These GoL-universes are mathematial universes. They have an initial
>>> condition and a mathematical rule that defines how that universe
>>> wi
2009/7/17 Bruno Marchal :
> Also, this general approach seems to me to have striking resonances
> with metaphysics such as Bohm's notions of implication and
> explication, as well as MWI.
>
> You may develop. I like very much Bohm, because he is an honest inquirer. I
> appreciate him as a respect
2009/7/17 Bruno Marchal :
> You are correct about truth and provability. You may have insisted a bit
> more on the first person/third person important , and still unsolved, to be
> sure, relationship, and the first person indeterminacy which follows. You
> certainly motivate me to explain better
On 19 July, 20:37, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You are close to the UDA, which we discuss since years here ...
> All the problem is there.
> But once you look closely, you can see the beginning of the reason why
> "law-and-order" realities win against "dream-logic" realities. This is
> eventually com
On 23 July, 05:38, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> You have written about it, and at least two of its properties, and so it
> is not completely ineffable, yes?
> So I think it is "effable" even if it is exceedingly difficult to
> describe fully. What I'm having trouble believing is that it is unknowabl
On 23 July, 05:23, Brent Meeker wrote:
> You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is ineffable/unknowable.
> So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within
> the
> unity. To become distinct from the background (the One) is what it means to
> be
> RITS
2009/7/23 Brent Meeker :
> I'm not sure I can even parse this paragraph. An "I" that is reflexive is one
> that refers to itself. So what is RITSIAR can refer to itself. So it
> implicitly entails a unity to refer to. Our is the unity the unity of
> perception, i.e. all my perceptions cohere
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 14:12, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> What do you think about the GoL-universes? You can look at some of
>> those at http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ . If you have an initial
>> condition and you have an unlimited board, then you can compute what
>> will
On 23 Jul 2009, at 01:18, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>> explanatory redundancy. Hence I'm a monist (or a non-dualist) who -
>>> given the singular incorrigibility of first-person 'experiential
>>> reality' - concludes that though whatever underlies remains forever
>>> *
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
>> Hi Brent,
>>
>>> You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is
>>> ineffable/unknowable.
>>> So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within
>>> the
>>> unity. To become distinct from the background
Brian Tenneson wrote:
> Hi Brent,
>> You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is
>> ineffable/unknowable.
>> So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within
>> the
>> unity. To become distinct from the background (the One) is what it means to
>> be
>
Hi Brent,
> You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is
> ineffable/unknowable.
> So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within
> the
> unity. To become distinct from the background (the One) is what it means to
> be
> RITSIAR. Right?
>
> Brent
>
David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/7/23 Brent Meeker :
>
>> If I understand you correctly, this is similar to the explication of "I" by
>> Thomas Metzinger in his book "The Ego Tunnel". He expresses it as the self
>> being transparent. We look *through* it but not *at* it, and necessarily so.
>
> Well,
2009/7/23 Brent Meeker :
> If I understand you correctly, this is similar to the explication of "I" by
> Thomas Metzinger in his book "The Ego Tunnel". He expresses it as the self
> being transparent. We look *through* it but not *at* it, and necessarily so.
Well, I haven't read it, but yes, w
David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>> explanatory redundancy. Hence I'm a monist (or a non-dualist) who -
>>> given the singular incorrigibility of first-person 'experiential
>>> reality' - concludes that though whatever underlies remains forever
>>> *unknowable* it must nonethele
2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal :
>> explanatory redundancy. Hence I'm a monist (or a non-dualist) who -
>> given the singular incorrigibility of first-person 'experiential
>> reality' - concludes that though whatever underlies remains forever
>> *unknowable* it must nonetheless perforce be 'real in the
On 22 Jul 2009, at 17:56, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/7/19 Rex Allen :
>
>> In your view, Bruno (or David, or anyone else who has an opinion),
>> what kinds of things actually "exist"? What does it mean to say that
>> something "exists"?
>
> This is naturally the $64k question for this list - o
On 22 July, 16:01, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Ma connection at home is again functioning. I am happy to have solved
> the problem rather quickly.
>
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal :
> You thought you could make fun of the poor disconnected one?
D
2009/7/19 Rex Allen :
> In your view, Bruno (or David, or anyone else who has an opinion),
> what kinds of things actually "exist"? What does it mean to say that
> something "exists"?
This is naturally the $64k question for this list - or any other, for
that matter (pun intended). I don't know
On 22 Jul 2009, at 14:12, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>>
>>The most general form of existence is: All mathematical possible
>>universes exist. Our universe is one of those mathematical
>> possible
>>existing universes.
>>
>>
>> This is non sense. Proof: see UDA. Or interrupt me when yo
Ma connection at home is again functioning. I am happy to have solved
the problem rather quickly.
On 22 Jul 2009, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal :
>
>> Ma connection at home is no functioning.
>
> As a linguistic aside, Bruno has cleverly expressed the above
> state
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> Le 22-juil.-09, à 10:27, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
>
> Rex Allen skrev:
>
> Brent:
>
> Do these mathematical objects "really" exist? I'd say they
> have
> logico-mathematical existence, not the same existence as
>
2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal :
> Ma connection at home is no functioning.
As a linguistic aside, Bruno has cleverly expressed the above
statement in perfect Glaswegian (i.e. the spoken tongue of Glasgow,
Scotland - my home town). Other well-known examples are: "Is'arra
marra on yer barra Clarra?" (Is
Hi,
Ma connection at home is no functioning. So I am temporarily
disconnected. I hope I will be able to solve that problem. I am sending
here some little comments from my office.
I include some more material for Kim and Marty, and others, just to
think about, in case I remain disconnected for
Rex Allen skrev:
> Brent,
>
> So my first draft addressed many of the points you made, but it that
> email got too big and sprawling I thought.
>
> So I've focused on what seems to me like the key passage from your
> post. If you think there was some other point that I should have
> addressed, le
Rex Allen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> So my first draft addressed many of the points you made, but it that
> email got too big and sprawling I thought.
>
> So I've focused on what seems to me like the key passage from your
> post. If you think there was some other point that I should have
> addressed,
Brent,
So my first draft addressed many of the points you made, but it that
email got too big and sprawling I thought.
So I've focused on what seems to me like the key passage from your
post. If you think there was some other point that I should have
addressed, let me know.
So, key passage:
>
On 21 Jul 2009, at 07:22, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> Brent, I intend to reply more directly to your post soon, as I think
> there's a lot to be said in response.
I agree! I let you comment first.
>
>
> But in the meantime:
>
> So I just finished reading David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality",
> an
Rex Allen wrote:
> Brent, I intend to reply more directly to your post soon, as I think
> there's a lot to be said in response.
>
> But in the meantime:
>
> So I just finished reading David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality",
> and I'm curious what you (Brent, Bruno, and anyone else) make of the
>
Brent, I intend to reply more directly to your post soon, as I think
there's a lot to be said in response.
But in the meantime:
So I just finished reading David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality",
and I'm curious what you (Brent, Bruno, and anyone else) make of the
following passage at the end of
Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> I am OK with all this. It has to be like this if we take the comp hyp
>>
>
> So what are your thoughts on my question as to whether abstract
> concepts other than numbers also exist in a platonic sense? For
> e
On 19 Jul 2009, at 04:43, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>> I am OK with all this. It has to be like this if we take the comp hyp
>
> So what are your thoughts on my question as to whether abstract
> concepts other than numbers also exist in a
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I am OK with all this. It has to be like this if we take the comp hyp
So what are your thoughts on my question as to whether abstract
concepts other than numbers also exist in a platonic sense? For
example, the idea of "red"?
So obvious
On 17 Jul 2009, at 09:08, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Nyman
> wrote:
>> In COMP, the 'mechanism and language of dreams' is
>> posited to be those elements of the number realm and its operators
>> that are deemed necessary to instantiate a 'universal TM' (i.e. on
ter).
P(0) and for all n (P(n) -> P(n+1)) implies that for all n we have
P(n).
I stop because I get technical and we are in AUDA here ... we will
come back on this.
Hope this help, but ask any precision, or summary, of what has been
said, or of what will be said.
Best,
Bruno
>
2009/7/17 Bruno Marchal :
> You are correct about truth and provability. You may have insisted a bit
> more on the first person/third person important , and still unsolved, to be
> sure, relationship, and the first person indeterminacy which follows. You
> certainly motivate me to explain better
o Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Dreams and Machines
Hi David,
I comment your post with an apology to Kim and Marty, then I make a comment
to Marty, and then I comment your (very nice) post.
Kim, Marty, I apologize f
Hi David,
I comment your post with an apology to Kim and Marty, then I make a
comment to Marty, and then I comment your (very nice) post.
Kim, Marty, I apologize for my bad sense of humor. Rereading some
post, I realize some nuance in the tone does not go through mailings.
Please indulge p
On 17 July, 08:08, Rex Allen wrote:
> But taking a more platonic view, abstract concepts also exist. And if
> this is so, could we not just as well say that our conscious
> subjective experience is formed from particular configurations of
> these platonically existing abstract concepts?
>
> I
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Nyman wrote:
> In COMP, the 'mechanism and language of dreams' is
> posited to be those elements of the number realm and its operators
> that are deemed necessary to instantiate a 'universal TM' (i.e. one
> that - assuming CT to be true - is capable of comput
David,
I appreciated this post because I'm more interested in the
philosophical implications (which I'm hoping to find at the end of Bruno's
UDA bridge to Valhalla) of these goings-on ...than in the mathematical
ones. Best,
43 matches
Mail list logo
