On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:14:47PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/28/2012 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How do you answer the person who get the 1-7 points, and concludes
(as he *believes* in a primary material world, and in comp) that
this proves that a physical universe, to procede
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, in Leibniz's metaphysics, the only active agent
is the supreme monad (the One),
who essentially does everything-- but performs
actions needed or requested by its submonads.
One might think of the supreme monad as creating
all actions. As universal mind.
The actions
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solipsism to our universe such that
other multiverse versions of oiur universe
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can
they dream?
Yes, the universal numbers can have concept.
Dear Bruno,
Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a
Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,
Number would probably be under one of Kant's
categories, quantity.
昐ubstance (e.g., man, horse)
昋uantity (e.g., four-foot, five-foot)
昋uality (e.g., white, grammatical)
昍elation (e.g., double, half)
昉lace (e.g., in the Lyceum, in the market-place)
旸ate (e.g.,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
John Clark should get a kick out of this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
In computer science, we deal all the time with processes that are
neither deterministic nor random.
BULLSHIT!
An example is a nondeterministic
Hi meekerdb
I think the = sign allows a concept to be predicated, such
as 2 = 1+1 where 1+1 is the predicate. A concept
and a predicate form a proposition, and you need
a proposition to judge whether something is true or false.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/31/2012
Forever is a
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
How do you explain the communicability of
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of
theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers
On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is
On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it
still be true that Holmes assistant is Watson?
If there are no humans, Conan Doyle would not have created the Holmes
and Watson characters, to which the use of the names refer, and the
On 31 Oct 2012, at 08:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:14:47PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/28/2012 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How do you answer the person who get the 1-7 points, and concludes
(as he *believes* in a primary material world, and in comp) that
this
On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:30, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, in Leibniz's metaphysics, the only active agent
is the supreme monad ...
This makes sense, with supreme monad = universal number.
... (the One),
I prefer to reserve the ONE for the whole arithmetical truth. The
On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
The ONE is much more than the universal mind, as it is where the
universal minds compete, perhaps before eventually recognizing
themselves and reuniting, or fusing,
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you were not answering the question in my post, which can be
sum up: are you OK with step 3, and what about step 4?
I don't even remember what step 2 was, I found a blunder in your
On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to explain
make any sense to you? Without being obvious about it, I am trying to
finely parse the difference between the logic of temporal
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solipsism to our universe such that
other multiverse
On 10/31/2012 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to
explain make any sense to you? Without
Hi Everyone:
I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a discussion
regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe starting in a
simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of
Physics” definition]
1) Definition (1): Energy (E)
On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying no to the
doctor.
It implies not saying yes qua computatio. It implies NOT understanding what Church
thesis is about, as to show it consistent you need the diagonalization, which use
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:25:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
John Clark should get a kick out of this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
In computer science, we deal all the time with processes that are
neither
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion
according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2,
... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed bijection from N x N to N. So B(x,y) is a
24 matches
Mail list logo
