On 09 Jun 2014, at 00:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 June 2014 22:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Ready? Have you bought the Mendelson?
OK, I give in.
Wonderful.
I just found a reasonably-priced second-hand copy of the Mendelson
on Abebooks - should be here in a few days.
On 7 June 2014 20:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
*At step 7, it is not in principle. Like in the preceding protocol, we just
assume the existence of an infinite running of the UD in our infinite
(then) space-time structure.*
*The proposition is that if that is the case, and don't see
On 08 Jun 2014, at 14:28, David Nyman wrote:
On 7 June 2014 20:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
At step 7, it is not in principle. Like in the preceding protocol,
we just assume the existence of an infinite running of the UD in our
infinite (then) space-time structure.
The
On 8 June 2014 22:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Ready? Have you bought the Mendelson?
OK, I give in. I just found a reasonably-priced second-hand copy of the
Mendelson on Abebooks - should be here in a few days. Oh, and by the way,
I'm presently reading and enjoying Hines's Return
On 12 Feb 2014, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-12 12:17 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem
On 12 February 2014 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
At step seven, the primitive materialist can still invoke a physicalist
form of ultrafinitism, to prevent the comp reversal between physics and
arithmetic (or number theology).
If I've grasped this, it's that one could attempt
On 07 Jun 2014, at 17:23, David Nyman wrote:
On 12 February 2014 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
At step seven, the primitive materialist can still invoke a
physicalist form of ultrafinitism, to prevent the comp reversal
between physics and arithmetic (or number theology).
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from
Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
simulate an exponential with such polynomials)
- the
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Isn't quantum mechanics based on the reals?
Yes. Like classical physics. And like, most plausibly the comp-
physics, by the dovetailing on the reals inputs, which might play a
role in the measure stabilization problem. But this has to be
On 11 Feb 2014, at 2:15 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum
duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and living from day
to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of) continuity.
Yes. The way I now
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
both the W *and* the M guy are the H guy
Yes.
the question bear on probability of expectation for the H guy when
he press the button...
If that is the question
On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-14 16:49 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 21:05 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13
On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:11, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 February 2014 15:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That is the origin of the white rabbits. if our brain is a universal
machine, we can can be failed, and are actually failed in infinities
of computations.
Do you mean fooled?
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With
others it is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply
approximation of natural numbers only, or, if you want,
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:32, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With
others it is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and
On 15 Feb 2014, at 00:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some
On 14 Feb 2014, at 22:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno
On 14 Feb 2014, at 23:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the
theorem of G, + the
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the following
phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything and nothing. That means
nothing)
5- comp aversion (too much comp, every
On 15 Feb 2014, at 12:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the
following phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything and nothing.
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a virtual world
where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in an infinity of
versions in the UD deployment as our own reality... You have no point
proving our own
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
LizR: but WHO is the observer?
The one great advantage that Many Worlds has over other quantum
interpretations is that Everett doesn't need to answer that question.
That's the reason I like it.
John K Clark
--
You received
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot simulate an
exponential with such polynomials)
- the polynomial on the integers are Turing universal, you
Isn't quantum mechanics based on the reals?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from
Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing
On 15 Feb 2014, at 14:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a
virtual world where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in
an infinity of versions in the UD deployment as
On 15 Feb 2014, at 17:55, John Clark wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
LizR: but WHO is the observer?
The one great advantage that Many Worlds has over other quantum
interpretations is that Everett doesn't need to answer that
question. That's the
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07,
On 16 February 2014 00:14, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the following
phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote:
thesis. This doesn't bother me - if you ever bothered to read my
thesis (not that I'm recommending you do so), you would find it
consists of two faily different topics, with only the most tenuous
connection between them.
Oopsa-daisy! All
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where
you describe
your work that you published since your thesis. I can sort of
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:20:43AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
simulate an exponential with such polynomials)
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the
theorem of G, + the axiom:
[]A - A
But is NOT close for the necessitation rule (can you see why that
is
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno
To summarize: there are all possible combinations of 1 and 0's therefore
everithing can be made isomorphic or emergent from 0 and 1's. So stop
thinking and praise 0s and 1s hypothesis.
-Why people make apparently weird distincitions?
it does not matter: comp says nothing about it. it depends on
On 14 February 2014 15:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That is the origin of the white rabbits. if our brain is a universal
machine, we can can be failed, and are actually failed in infinities of
computations.
Do you mean fooled?
David
--
You received this message because you
On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is
true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to
refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:06 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you is
because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they
will never meet.
That changes absolutely nothing... just put the
+1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is
true but at a lower level and what we have observed
2014-02-14 19:29 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you
is because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they
will never meet.
Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we
can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair
splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has
accepted the MWI has
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
John, You need to read about the latest developments in string theory.
The sad fact is that there are no recent developments in string theory ,
and in fact in its entire history it only made one prediction that could be
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
both the W *and* the M guy are the H guy
Yes.
the question bear on probability of expectation for the H guy when he
press the button...
If that is the question then the answer will be of zero help in
understanding
LizR: but WHO is the observer? In my vocabulary observer is anyrhing/body
acknowledging input on anything/body.
(from a charged ion to G.B.Shaw upon an electric charge up to a
drama-input.Observation is part of consciousness (again
in my terms: as response to relations). (Now Brent, please, do not
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:21AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue,
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others it is
not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply approximation of
natural numbers only, or, if you want, you can analogically add and multiply the real
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
LizR: but WHO is the observer? In my vocabulary observer is
anyrhing/body acknowledging input on anything/body.
(from a charged ion to G.B.Shaw upon an electric charge up to a
drama-input.Observation is part of consciousness
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where you
describe
your work that you published since your thesis. I can sort of see you
saying something a bit like the above on page 11 Now DU
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others it
is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply
approximation of natural numbers
On 14 Feb 2014, at 12:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
To summarize: there are all possible combinations of 1 and 0's
therefore everithing can be made isomorphic or emergent from 0 and
1's.
?
So stop thinking and praise 0s and 1s hypothesis.
?
-Why people make apparently weird
On 2/14/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others it
is not.
The slide rules is not
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others
it is
On 2/14/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the theorem of G, +
the axiom:
[]A - A
But is NOT close for the
On 15 February 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I was merely using teleportation as an example to illustrate that
possible is a relative concept depending on the accessiblity relation.
What does possible in principle mean? Does it only mean not self
contradictory? Does it
On 2/14/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated
in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics.
Nice, comp
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in
some
On 13 Feb 2014, at 04:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on
modal logic, directly related to the machine discourse (and this
will be justified later, as it is not obvious at all).
snip
On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18,
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true.
So if you extract F= KmM/r^2 from comp, and you refute it
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true.
The duplication of human beings, such a significant prediction of comp,
should then be amenable to test- using mice of course.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40,
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the theorem of G, +
the axiom:
[]A - A
But is NOT close for the necessitation rule (can you see why that is impossible). This
entails that G* has no Kripke
On 2/13/2014 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal
On 14 February 2014 07:26, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The duplication of human beings, such a significant prediction of comp,
should then be amenable to test- using mice of course.
I don't think comp predicts this. Bruno only uses it as a thought
experiment.
However if this is
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true
but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp
is a dream or simulation at a higher level.
If this is true, comp isn't a
beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that
Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show that he
was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics.
all the best
Chris.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj
Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:08 +
Hi Quentin
I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he
maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does
it is in reality
you who has failed to convince him.
All the best
Chris
--
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:08 +
Hi Quentin
I do not, valid critics
applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show
that he was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics.
all the best
Chris.
--
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and
can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps
simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that
duplication is possible. (And anyone who thinks consciousness is digital
with the correct way to predict expectancy in a
universe in which every possible outcome occurs. They didn't concern
technological limitations. I don't think anyone has objected on that score have
they?
All the best
Chris.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
a similar problem?)
All the best
Chris.
--
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:21AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal
On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where you describe
your work that you published since your thesis. I can sort of see you
saying something a bit like the above on page 11 Now DU [sic - should
be UD in English] is emulated
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014
:00:42 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist
On 11 Feb 2014, at 14:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with
it! :-)
: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical
realism in
the sense required for this argument. I think
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in
S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.
The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of
X1*\X1, (and even that
2014-02-12 12:17 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that on
any universal system, and comp predicts that this will always give
the same physics.
How does it predict that?
All universal systems
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I think what is shown is that there can be a world including
conscious beings which does not require physical events in our
world, i.e. they can be merely arithmetical or Turing machince
events. In
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical
realism in
the sense
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
