How you can remember all those technical details is astonishing, but thanks
for the confirmation and the trip down memory lane. marty a.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ronaldheld" <ronaldh...@gmail.com>
To: "Everything List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
in TOS: "the enemy within" On stardate 1672.1, in 2266, a strange ore
had altered the function of the transporter, causing one of the most
bizarre transporter accidents on record, in which Captain James T.
Kirk was split into two separate entities. No mention of where the
extra matter came from.
in TNG:"second chances" In 2361, on Nervala IV, the USS Potemkin was
conducting an evacuation of the science outpost on the planet.
Lieutenant William T. Riker was part of the away team at the time.
in VOY "tuvix" Lysosomal enzymes of an alien orchid were the cause of
another accident in that same year. Tuvok, Neelix and the orchid were
temporarily merged into one being during transport. Tuvix, as he named
himself (or themselves), was a complete mixture of the talents of both
After discovering how to separate the two patterns and retrieve both
Tuvok and Neelix, Tuvix protested that such a procedure would be
equivalent to murdering him, but the procedure was undertaken anyway,
and Tuvok and Neelix were restored
in TNG"rascals" Coming back from a botanic expedition on planet
Marlonia where Keiko O'Brien found a specimen of Draebidium calimus,
the Fermi shuttle piloted by Ro Laren, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Keiko
and Guinan falls victim of an energy anomaly. The emergency transport
back is difficult, and the USS Enterprise-D crew is shocked by the
return of a twelve year old Captain, bartender, botanist and Bajoran
Ensign instead of their adult selves.
These are all I had the time to remember, retrieve and post from
work.The descriptive text come from Memory Alpha
An unusual distortion field meant the Potemkin had difficulty beaming
up Riker. A second confinement beam was initiated to overcome these
difficulties, with the intent of reintegrating the two beams in the
This was unnecessary as only one beam was successful at transporting
Riker, the modulation of the distortion caused the second beam to be
reflected back down to the surface, materializing two Rikers, one on
the ship, and one on the planet's surface. Unlike the two Kirks
created in 2266, both Rikers were functionally identical to the
On Sep 23, 4:39 am, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 23 Sep, 07:06, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:07, Flammarion wrote:
> > >>> On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > >>>> On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
> > >>>>>> You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>> invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
> > >>>>> "Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
> > >>>>> machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate
> > >>>>> [the
> > >>>>> pain I feel at space-time (x,t)] to a type or a sheaf of
> > >>>>> computations
> > >>>>> (existing forever in the arithmetical Platonia which is accepted
> > >>>>> as
> > >>>>> existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism). "
> > >>>> This is in the eight step.
> > >>>> I don't know which game you are playing, Peter, you never address
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> point.
> > >>>> I have no clue what you mean by an immaterial UD, or actual
> > >>>> existing
> > >>>> numbers.
> > >>> I mean exactly what you mean by "existing forever in the
> > >>> arithmetical
> > >>> Platonia which is accepted as
> > >>> existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism"
> > >> I mean that the truth status of statement having the shape ExP(x),
> > >> with P written in first order arithmetic is true or false
> > >> independently of me or of any consideration.
> > > But that doesn't mean the same thing at all.
> > Assuming comp, this is necessarily enough.
> > > Formalists
> > > can accept such truths, they just don't think that truths
> > > about what exists mathematically use a literal sense of
> > > "truth".
> > What is a 'literal' sense of truth
> > Also, what is primary matter and where does it comes from, and why
> > does it organize into living being if it is propertyless?
> It only lacks essential properties. It can have any property as
> an accident.
> > >>>> I believe that to say yes to someone who will replace my brain by a
> > >>>> digital machine, in this in the sense of believing that it is the
> > >>>> computation that matter at some level, I have to trust a minimal
> > >>>> amount of computer science.
> > >>>> If you agree that the proof of the existence of two irrational
> > >>>> numbers
> > >>>> such that x^y is rational does provide information, then by MG
> > >>>> Argument you may understand the point or find a flaw, fatal or not.
> > >>>> Who knows?
> > >>> How do you get from providing information to an immaterial UD?
> > >> It is program without input which generates all the Pi, that is
> > >> programs computing the phi_i, together with their arguments and
> > >> dovetel on the execution of the computations. It is equivalent with
> > >> the finite + infinite proof of the Sigma_1 sentences (those with the
> > >> shape ExP(x) with P decidable).
> > > I don;t see what that has to do with information.
> > Which information? The Shannon like information comes from the
> > arithmetical truth, and the "meaning-consciousness information" comes
> > from the fixed point of machine self-observability.
> The idea that mathematical theorems have shanning information
> is contradicted by the idea that mathematical theorems are logically
> tautologies.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at