On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
>> It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not
not Y then X is gibberish,
> X = alcohol Y = poison.
becomes "alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison"
Exactly, and 2 negatives, like "isn't not" cancel each other out
so you get "alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison"
which is gibberish just like I said.
Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that
there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to
the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.
> If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols "free will" mean.
And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from
the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful,
aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a
I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process
that is either random or deterministic.
It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.
Sure. It's hard to even define what might be meant by "completely"
Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make
good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know
that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible contains maximal
information, but no way at all to decode it.
I do have have a notion of "completely random" though, I define it by
My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 0000000000000000000...
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need "actual infinities",
and thus Set Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.
There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of
normality. In that case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think
it is still an open problem to prove that, but it has been proved for
Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn = 0,
1234567891011121314151617.... It is normal (pun intended) as it
contains all arbitrary sequences of digits.
Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly
In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which
is partially deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.