On 2/13/2012 9:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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!
Truth and knowledge are not the same thing. I don't see the relevance of your
remark.
Brent
--
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.
