Re: substitution level

On 12 Jun 2017, at 01:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and Control, 57, pp. 40-47. And I raise you with @Article{Chang-etal94, author = {Richard Chang and Benny

Re: substitution level

Thanks both for the references! Best, Telmo. On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and >> Control, 57, pp. 40-47.

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:34:44AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and > Control, 57, pp. 40-47. > And I raise you with @Article{Chang-etal94, author = {Richard Chang and Benny Chor and Oded Goldreich and Juris

Re: substitution level

On 09 Jun 2017, at 18:34, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes

Re: substitution level

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> I guess you mean that it

Re: substitution level

On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. Of course, it can "do" things impossible to do in real

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? >> >> >> >> > >> Why so nasty? > > > It's been 152 years. Too soon? I

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. > > > Yes. > > Of course, it can > > "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject,

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 , spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > c​ > onsciousness may be profitable field of learning, or it may stand still > forever, as is surmised. Of course doing experiments with living things, > including ourselves > ​ [...] > ​Not ​

Re: substitution level

. An anti-Xeno sort of thing. -Original Message- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 5, 2017 12:35 pm Subject: Re: substitution level On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomen

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> ​>​ >> Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? > > ​> ​ > Why so nasty? ​It's been 152 years. Too soon?​ > ​> ​ > All I was saying is that quantum computers are not > ​ ​ > qualitatively

Re: substitution level

On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. Of course, it can "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuine random

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> > >> There is nothing that a quantum >> computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, > > > There are problems a > classical

Re: substitution level

> I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. > Of course, it can > "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, > that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuine > random bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum

Re: substitution level

On 05 Jun 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so ​ ​ there's no

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > ​> ​ > > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so > > ​ ​ > > there's no answer to find there, but the halting

Proof and truth are not the same thing (was: substitution level)

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Anything that can be done a Turing Machine can do, if it can't be done >> then a Turing Machine can't do it, and neither can anything else.​ > > ​> ​ > If "can be done" means "can compute or emulate", I am OK. That

Re: substitution level

On 04 Jun 2017, at 03:20, John Clark wrote: Anything that can be done a Turing Machine can do, if it can't be done then a Turing Machine can't do it, and neither can anything else.​ If "can be done" means "can compute or emulate", I am OK. That is basically Church's Thesis. If by "can

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > There is nothing that a quantum > ​ ​ > computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, ​There are problems a ​ classical computer ​ can't solve in polynomial time that a quantum computer can.​ ​> ​ >

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > ​> ​ > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so > ​ ​ > there's no answer to find there, but the halting problem always has an > ​ ​ > answer - a program either halts, or it does not. >

Re: substitution level

On 01 Jun 2017, at 19:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) What if the substitution level tur

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:20 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a >> classical computer > > > If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 09:20:29PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 Russell Standish wrote: > > ​> ​ > > Random oracle computers appear to be faster for some problems in a > > similar way, but don't compute anything a Turing machine can't do. > > ​[...] ​ >

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ > Random oracle computers appear to be faster for some problems in a > similar way, but don't compute anything a Turing machine can't do. > ​[...] ​ > the set of problems that can be solved is identical ​ That's because

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:20:29PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > ​> ​ > > Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a > > classical computer > > > ​If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence

Re: substitution level

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a > classical computer ​If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence today, had a telephone number and tried to match it up with a name in a

Re: substitution level

On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) What if the substitution level turns out to be at a higher level than quantum? E.g. at the level of the neurons and their connections and activations levels? That would

substitution level

Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) >> What if the substitution level turns out to be at a higher level than >> quantum? E.g. at the level of the neurons and their connections and >> activations levels? > > > That would enlar

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 16:56, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are you as well? The crime is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

level of emulation. OK. It can be replaced, in the physical reality, at the substitution level. The brain's function must be Turing emulable. At least those relevant for the relevant computations. OK. But then after going through the argument to show that conscious thoughts

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 03:35, Kim Jones wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think)

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED, string theory or theoretical computer science. A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That does not refute

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: does a group mind refer to ourself or myselves ? That depends on the speed of light and how far apart the individual brains are. It they're far apart and it takes a long time to send a signal to another brain relative to the time it takes to

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are you as well? The crime is intellectual dishonesty. I don't believe anyone this side

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 2:20 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with me.) Thanks! :)

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/10/2015 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/10/2015 7:56 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are you as

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 11 June 2015 at 10:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm a solipsist and I'm surprised more philosophers aren't solipsists. --- letter to Bertrand Russell Phew, another solipsist! I was afraid I might be the only one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as kicking back. Johnson did

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the numbers, but

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:37, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something that was invented, and could

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:37, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent) Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato's Theaetetus dialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think that's a deficiency in modal

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 00:21, LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:24, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 Jun 2015, at 8:07 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 18:40, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be defined in standard set theory YOU CAN'T

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive matter for making more

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that position is proved to be

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: What axioms led to arithmetic? The Peano axioms. They were chosen because they are very simple and self evident. You need to be very conservative when picking axioms, for example we could just add the Goldbach Conjecture as an

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: What axioms led to arithmetic? The Peano axioms. Or the Robinson axiom, or many other systems. but they don't disagree on any formula. Even the theories having weird axioms

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED, string theory or theoretical computer science. A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That does not refute that rockets can work. Brent :) -- You

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made.

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 Jun 2015, at 11:53 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with me.) Thanks! :) So yes, I don't think hurling 'solopsist!' at someone hurts

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive matter for making more real some computations in place of others. It

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that position is proved to be nonsense. Comp is just I am a digitalizable

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent) Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato'sTheaetetusdialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think that's a deficiency in modal logic insofar as it's supposed to

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the numbers, but that is not the case for analysis, real numbers,

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean that only computations can be conscious,

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 07:18:19PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: In a Newtonian world physics is deterministic Yes, but deterministic is not the same as predictable. so there is an exact solution: That doesn't necessarily

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lizj...@gmail.com'); wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we assume

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: (And what's wrong with sneaked ?) I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something that was invented, and could equally well have been invented differently,

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: (And what's wrong with sneaked ?) I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have sneaked into the language:

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 7:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: (And what's wrong with sneaked ?) I was trying to be faintly

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 04:14, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be defined in standard set theory YOU CAN'T

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent) Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato's Theaetetus dialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think that's a deficiency in modal logic insofar as it's supposed to formalize good informal reasoning. But I can see

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 01:14, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2015 3:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event is just a place and a time; are you

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 04:31, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: everyone agrees that 2+2=4 by definition, it's not so clear that arithmetic objects exist. If 2+2=4 exists then 2+2=5 does too. 2+2 is true. That's all. Platonia may contain all

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 00:00, LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is incapable

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be defined in standard set theory YOU CAN'T MAKE A COMPUTATION WITH A DEFINITION! I can do

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is incapable of handling 4 coordinates? Of course, applied mathematics exists, and you can represent event in

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 06 Jun 2015, at 02:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/5/2015 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's very relevant if you want

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is incapable of handling 4 coordinates? Of course, applied mathematics exists, and you can represent event in mathematics, but you shopuld not confuse something

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 05 Jun 2015, at 20:35, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Event is a physical notion. Algorithmic non compressibility is an mathematical notion. An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is incapable of handling 4

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 05 Jun 2015, at 21:03, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Do you agree that the simulated john Clark will still complain that matter is missing in computation, despite we know that he refers to number relations, without knowing it? If the

  1   2   3   >