Hi Bruno Marchal
I had forgotten about the relations, namely, the equations.
Which are always true and so belong to platonia.
--
Consider the following. The short form is that Peirce's
I = the intuition of time = 1p = t
II = the
Hey all on the list,
Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this
teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish
to simply conclude from the entire argument that the correct substitution
level is, in principle, not only not knowable, but not
Peirce, Kant and Plato simplified
I = Firstness = time alone = awareness= subject = 1p
II = Secondness = events (space intuition + time) = time dependent functions =
perceiving events = relational = 2p
III = Thirdness = space intution (time independent truths or contents) =
objects = 3p
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks. It's rare and very expensive to buy
but I can read it online.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
I sweep the undesireable stuff you mention into
contingia and keep platonia spotless and perfect.
Time-independent equations or propositions,
necessary and/or persistent truths.
Platonia is objective thirdness = 3p
Secondness = relational, time-dependent truths (events) = 2p
Hi Bruno Marchal
OK, so it's not numbers alone (pure numbers),
something else is required. At the very minimum that
something else must be intelligence,
the ability to essentially freely make choices of one's own.
Nothing can be done without intelligence.
But if you can do that, what's
Hi Stephen,
Science has meaured the beginning of the universe
to have occured about 14 billion years ago.
So it has a beginning.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence intelligence.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody
Hi Stephen P. King
Then you will get an incorrect motion,
which indeed would be very,very interesting.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Hi Stephen P. King
There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
them during manufacture.
er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
Hi Stephen P. King
Perhaps they fly apart because they are a little warm
which causes vibrations and there is nothing to hold them together.
One will probably have put a little spin on them as well.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the
Hi Stephen P. King
It's an imperfect world.
Initial perfection results from assuming the initial
crystal entropy to be zero. But in reality there is
always an entropy from misfitting planes (dislocations)
and there is a thermal equilibrium concentration of
vacancies. And impurities cause
Hi Bruno Marchal
Plato says that we all live in a dark cave, seeing only
shadows on the wall, eager to see the light outside.
So there is at least a duality which I call platonia (heaven)
and contingia (earth).
Platonia contains the necessary stuff, the dark cave we live in
contains the
Hi Bruno Marchal
The Devil is in the details, and why bother with numbers
when you could use words ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Chomsky says in effect that what we call platonia
is grammatically structured, hence the rapidity
that children learn language. At the least
one can form simple propositions such
I see the cat.
I suggest that these proposations are at first
vocal, as you can see young
I always emphasize that there is a evolutionary logic, which unlike any
other logic, is tautological, that is assume no axioms beyond natural
selection (which is tautological per se)
I will define here this logic as clear as I can.
Therefore evolutionary logic a good foundation for an absolute
On 10.11.2012 12:17 Roger Clough said the following:
I spent a career at NIST studying the resulting effects on strength.
Do you know John Hastie and David Bonnell? I have been once an year with
them at NIST.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Better written:
2012/11/10 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
I always emphasize that there is a evolutionary logic, which unlike any
other logic, is tautological, that is assume no axioms beyond natural
selection (which is tautological per se)
I will define here this logic as clear
Sorry, I added some thing particularly:
That 1+1=3 is false is a shortcut for the expression: There is no mind that
tough seriously that 1+1=3 and acted upon it. Or, if it ever existed, it or
its descendants will dissapear. This reduces truth to existence
That something is god means that the
Dear Dan,
you make a lot of sense. Not so surprizing, though: thought experiments
are created for handling impossible (and NOT knowable) circumstances in the
tenets of (possible? believed?) scientific figments. Like e.g. the EPR.
Or: teleportation (a decade-long bore for me - sorry, Fellows).
My
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we consider each
observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of an infinite number of computations.
The chooser of A and of B is one and the same if and only if the
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be
made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move
and rotate in space.
I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects,
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Consciousness = life = intelligence.
Therefore oak trees are intelligent and conscious.
In addition, intelligence requires free will
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
John K Clark
--
You received
On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
them during manufacture.
Hi Roger,
The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
to the order. When we are considering ontological models and
On 11/10/2012 6:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Perhaps they fly apart because they are a little warm
which causes vibrations and there is nothing to hold them together.
One will probably have put a little spin on them as well.
Those kinds of behaviors defines those things
On 11/10/2012 11:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we
consider each observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of an
infinite number of computations. The chooser of A and of B is one and
On 09 Nov 2012, at 22:52, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Or? OR?!! Bruno Marchal just said the Helsinki man will survive
in two examples, in M AND in W; and now Bruno Marchal is asking if
the Helsinki man will survive in M OR
On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey all on the list,
Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this teleportation
business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to simply conclude from the
entire argument that the correct substitution level is,
On 11/10/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/10/2012 11:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we consider each
observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of an infinite number of
On 09 Nov 2012, at 20:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/9/2012 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is wrong and even the opposite of what I am arguing! I take
the argument of comp and stop at step 8 and try to reconstruct a
On 11/10/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You take as a weakness of comp the fact that it reduce the mind-body problem to a body
problem, but it is its main qualitative advantage, as it explains how and where the
physical laws can come from, and this in a testable way, making comp scientific
On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey all on the list,
Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this
teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's
Razorish to simply conclude from the entire argument that the
correct substitution
Not quite. It has measured that the universe 14 billion year ago was
very different from now, ie very hot and dense. All else is theory -
some theories have a beginning, others don't.
Cheers
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:50:38AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Science has meaured the
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:55:03AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence intelligence.
I will insist that this is
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM +0100, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Vaguely interesting, until this point
The reason why Lamarkism is not
true is more a factual consequence of the defeat of the USSR than a direct
consequence of scientific debate. It may be said that lisenko Lamarkism was
Hi John,
I am quite aware of your views, which you descibe below, but I fail to
see how it applies to the conversation Hal I were having on the
impacts of continuous growth in a bounded world.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:00:42PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
Hal and Russell:
my agnostic thinking
On 11/10/2012 2:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:55:03AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence
On 11/6/2012 2:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could´n be reduced, were relegated to
a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false dichotomy between is and
ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were
It is not relativist post modernist, it is just the opposite
it is the discovery of an absolute universal truth starting from nothing,
or if you like, from the most absolute relativism..
2012/11/11 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
If All the rest is vaguely interesting for you, then
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:27:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But the definition
[of rationality]
seems overly restrictive. It's well known that
in competitive games the best strategy may random in some way. So I
don't see how you can arbitrarily rule out random choices as
'irrational'
Sorry instead of depart from common sense. I should say that uses
common sense...
This is a third try, since many things are written horrendously and
unintelligible.
Evolutionary logic:
I always emphasize that there is a evolutionary logic, which unlike any
other logic, is tautological,
Brent,
This is obviously so. and it is not arguable against.
It is an observable fact. is obviously true that if you live in a
society where everyone take something as true , no matter what, then it is
true for one of its members, you, for example.
2012/11/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/10/2012 3:56 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:27:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But the definition
[of rationality]
seems overly restrictive. It's well known that
in competitive games the best strategy may random in some way. So I
don't see how you can arbitrarily
On 11/10/2012 4:29 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Brent,
This is obviously so. and it is not arguable against.
It is an observable fact.
It is an observable fact that most of a society may believe falsehoods. So it is NOT an
observable fact that most of a society believing something makes it
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the
doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality)
COMP - NOT MAT
MAT - NOT COMP
NOT MAT or NOT COMP
I keep COMP as a working hypothesis, as I have no clue what
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 04:37:55PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 3:56 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
But if it is rational to be irrational, is it possible to be rational any
more?
No, but you're making a conundrum out of it. The point is that it's
rational to be non-deterministic.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak
materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical
reality)
COMP - NOT MAT
MAT - NOT COMP
NOT MAT or NOT COMP
I have tried to post this several times. It appears I am again having
issues with my email software. I am sorry if it eventually posts
multiple times.
Hi John and Russell:
As far as I know all the “Laws of Physics” are based on observation
and are absent closed form proof.
Given the data I
On 11/10/2012 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 04:37:55PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 3:56 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
But if it is rational to be irrational, is it possible to be rational any more?
No, but you're making a conundrum out of it. The point is
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain)
is required for intersubjectivity between minds. It is an
anti-solipsism requirement.
But how does the requirement for
On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain)
is required for intersubjectivity between minds. It is an
anti-solipsism
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:43:29PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I'm not sure how Bruno argues for it, but my version goes something
like:
1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness
2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:44:36PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Only for some extended, loose definition of rational. The
non-deterministic choices themselves are not rationally determined.
Of course not by your definition of rational for in that case
On 11/10/2012 9:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Correct. A stochastic decision is obviously not reasoned, so the
decision itself cannot be rational.
But that wasn't the original assertion. You said that a rational person could,
necessarily, on chose one action. So if the rational decision is
54 matches
Mail list logo
