On 17 Aug 2009, at 02:02, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I exist could be, perhaps, tautological. But Reality? I don't
think so. Certainly not from inside.
What is reality, beyond our conscious experience of existence?
This is
Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much
precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal
Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some vocabulary
adjustments.
Bruno
On 17 Aug 2009, at 03:54, David Nyman wrote:
2009/8/14 Bruno
On 16 Aug 2009, at 04:08, russell standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:03:41PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Look at this in this way: may be it is because I like the stuffy
stuff
so much that I want to assoir it on something more solid than
^^ seat? - base
On 16 Aug, 16:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Aug 2009, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 14 Aug, 09:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are dismissing the first person indeterminacy. A stuffy TM can
run
a computation. But if a consciousness is attached to that
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
round.
Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not
exist? Prime number does not exist? That
2009/8/17 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Look, I have already said that I am not going to get into an argument
about which pixies exist.
Forgive me for butting in, but I wonder whether there is a level at
which your metaphysical disagreement is perhaps somewhat more
resolvable? It might be
On 17 Aug, 08:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much
precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal
Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some vocabulary
adjustments.
Thanks
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
explain.
Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is
This leads to major difficulties, even before approaching the
consciousness
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
On 17 Aug 2009, at 12:39, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much
precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal
Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by
I've seen John Baez suggest that
On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
round.
Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not
exist? Prime
Jesse Mazer wrote:
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
explain.
Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is
This leads to major difficulties, even before
I'm afraid you are solipsist.
Ha! Ouch! But it's not quite as simple as that. I don't deny that
there MAY be something that causes consciousness, BUT if there
is...this ultimately doesn't matter. In the final view, the
conclusion is the same...consciousness experience just is what it is.
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
round.
Are you saying that
On 17 Aug, 20:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on
Rex,
(I guess the unsigned text below came from you)
thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on
Conscious Experience!
John Mikes
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Yep. I have no problem with any of that
Really? Let's see then.
The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a
statement like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality
and thus being forced to accept
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
I am trying to persuade Bruno that his argument has an implict
assumption of Platonism that should be made explicit. An assumption
of Platonism as a non-observable background might be
justifiiable in the way you suggest, but it does need
to be
On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen John Baez suggest that
For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut).
Were those really the days?
D
On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
explain.
But what is this primary matter? If it
David Nyman wrote:
On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen John Baez suggest that
For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut).
In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of
2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Primary matter is very much related to the fact that some theories of
physics work and other do not. It won't tell you which ones work, but
it will tell you why there is a difference. It solves the white rabbit
problem. We don't see logically
David Nyman wrote:
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Yep. I have no problem with any of that
Really? Let's see then.
The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a
statement
like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality and thus
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
(I guess the unsigned text below came from you)
thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on
Conscious Experience!
John Mikes
Indeed! Thanks John, glad you liked it!
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM,
25 matches
Mail list logo
