On 04 Feb 2017, at 19:15, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> You were correct when when you said "he is
duplicated", therefore while in H any question of the form "what
will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:39:35 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
> >
> >
> > And so do you think of yourself as agnostic about the value of
> fascism?...or
> > communism?
>
> Yes, I reject simplistic
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 2/5/2017 3:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> Inconsistent? Would you have people who oppose fascism not have a
>>> definition of fascism - so that they were just opposing some undefined,
>>> amorphous ideology?
Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad
Authors: Sean M. Carroll
Comments: 27 pages. Invited submission to a volume on Current
Controversies in Philosophy of Science, eds. Shamik Dasgupta and Brad
Weslake
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Cosmology and
Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO);
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 5:39:19 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Feb 2017, at 15:25, PGC wrote:
>
> Now it's interdisciplinary that nobody recognizes arithmetical reality to
> not be axiomatizable, the next day it's a mathematicalism, on another day
> it's a point in theology,
On 2/6/2017 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/5/2017 3:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Inconsistent? Would you have people who oppose fascism not have a
definition of fascism - so that they were just opposing some
On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel
seeing only one city.
How does computationalism alone guarantee that? It seems that it relies
on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and the
physical
On Mon., 6 Feb. 2017 at 11:06 pm, Ronald Held wrote:
> Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad
> Authors: Sean M. Carroll
>
> Comments: 27 pages. Invited submission to a volume on Current
> Controversies in Philosophy of Science, eds. Shamik Dasgupta and Brad
> Weslake
> Subjects:
On 2/6/2017 9:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon., 6 Feb. 2017 at 11:06 pm, Ronald Held > wrote:
Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad
Authors: Sean M. Carroll
Comments: 27 pages. Invited submission to a volume on Current
On 05 Feb 2017, at 21:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/5/2017 3:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Inconsistent? Would you have people who oppose fascism not have a
definition of fascism - so that they were just opposing some
undefined,
amorphous ideology?
It is interesting that you bring this
On 2/6/2017 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As such it has nothing to do with facts in the world.
Which world?
This world. The one I can interact with.
Sorry, with computationalism, there is only a web of dreams, and it is
an open problem if those "cohere" enough to define a notion of
11 matches
Mail list logo