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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to