On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
particular as primitive, even if it is quantity itself, for to do
such is to
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes, that is the usual meaning. It can also be written (DP or not COMP).
= = or not]
The definition is a somewhat wordy, but essentially technically
correct, form of the standard definition of a basis in Linear Algebra.
What is your question, exactly?
Cheers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:09:07AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
Lizr's resent post got me thinking
On 5/23/2012 1:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
The definition is a somewhat wordy, but essentially technically
correct, form of the standard definition of a basis in Linear Algebra.
What is your question, exactly?
Hi Russell,
Could you elaborate on the dependence of the basis being given
On 23 May 2012, at 07:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes, that is the usual meaning. It can also be
On 23 May 2012, at 02:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/22/2012 4:22 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
particular as primitive, even if it is
On 5/23/2012 4:53 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/23/2012 1:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
The definition is a somewhat wordy, but essentially technically
correct, form of the standard definition of a basis in Linear Algebra.
What is your question, exactly?
Hi Russell,
Could you
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp model
(theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the whole
of physics,
It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are within the category of Mental then that
is news to
On 5/23/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such cannot assume any
2012/5/23 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 5/23/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such
On 5/23/2012 1:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are within the
On 23.05.2012 19:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
There seems to be a divergence of definitions occurring. It might be
better for me to withdraw from philosophical discussions for a while
and focus just on mathematical questions, like the dependence on
order of a basis...
I
On Tue, May 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
for no reason.
I have many reasons
Then you are
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are
On 23.05.2012 20:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let us take terms like information, computation, etc. Are they
mental or mathematical?
Information is vague, and can be both.
Computation is mathematical, by using the Church
On 23 May 2012, at 19:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/23/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/22/2012 6:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
No, Bruno, it is not Neutral monism as such
On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one.
The comp model (theory) has much more predictive power than
physics, given that it predicts the whole of physics,
It's easy to predict
On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp model
(theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it predicts the
Hi Brent:
What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular universe.
My belief is that the best we can do is to predict the components of physics
common to every evolving universe.
My efforts have focused on understanding why there is a dynamic within the
On 5/23/2012 1:20 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Brent:
What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a
particular universe.
It's the other extreme from 'predicting' everything happens. Since we only have the one
physical universe against which to test the prediction, it's the
Hi Brent:
I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be
able to list ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete
catalog of universes?
Suppose ours is just number 9,876,869,345 in the catalog. Would we ever
complete such a project within the
On 5/23/2012 4:42 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Brent:
I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be able to list
ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete catalog of universes?
But I wasn't asking for ALL the aspects, just a few very general ones
Hi Brent:
I shall try to respond tomorrow.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations
On
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
to sleep under a bush tonight.
Only because of how we have defined probability and our assumptions
about what it possible. There is nothing to say
Einstein and Formulas.
=.
Einstein said, that the scientist does not think with formulas.
But, dear Einstein, please see how nice to think
with the help of these formulas: you can imagine
the whole picture of Existence’s creation.
=.
§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D=
26 matches
Mail list logo
