On 2/13/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau
Compact Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control
all physical interactions as they each contain the laws of
physics; and collectively they may manifest consciousness as well
as perhaps Platonia and "cyclic gossiping" as their variable
properties across the universe may manifest a Peano arithmetic.
Regarding communication each spherical element/manifold instantly
maps all the other manifolds and all physical phenomena to its
interior. http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0044
--
Hi Richard,
I am highly skeptical of string theory because of its
Landscape problem, the lack of observational evidence of
super-partner particles, the fact that it is not back-ground
independent and its underlying philosophical assumptions. All that
aside, I will take a look at the referenced paper.
Onward!
Stephen
Hi Richard,
I like your paper! I would like to point out something. You quoted
[Chalmers(1995)]:
(1) Assume my reasoning powers are captured by some formal system F
(to put this more briefly, "I am
F"). Consider the class of statements I can know to be true, given
this assumption.
(2) Given that I know that I am F, I know that F is sound (as I
know that I am sound).
But you don't know what F is, as a formal system. You've just
ostensively identified it by pointing to yourself and naming it "F".
Brent
Hi Brent,
OK, but let us take the assumption that the mathematical truth of
a sentence is all that matters. Therefore my pointing at myself and
stating the sentence "I am
F" makes it so? Why do I need to explicitly "know" a particular
example of the formal system F? Fiat existence! Weeeeeeeee!
You need to know what F is in order to reach the contradiction is step
(5). You don't have "knowledge that I am F" where F is a formal
system. You only have knowledge that "I have named myself 'F'".
Brent
Hi Brent,
What?! Truth is not 3p? Surely you jest!
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
