On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
Brent
Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
misunderstanding?
It was last time yesterday when I wrote the opposite.
Here's the exchange:---------------------------------------
JM: I appreciate the mathematical truth (reality) but do not substitute it for *REALITY*
(of which my agnosticism fails to know more).
BM: But mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that the machine's
epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth.
Then, yes, for the ontology, IF we assume comp, then the mathematical, even the
arithmetical reality, is shown to be complete.
But we stay agnostic on this, as we stay agnostic on comp itself.
Somehow you seem to be non agnostic on the question of reality. You seem to talk like if
you knew that reality is not the arithmetical reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I do not joke about being agnostic,
especially in cases what I 'assume', like 'the existence of a reality'. I call it
'infinite complexity'
and would really appreciate to learn your definition of the "finite". (Not
mathematically, of course).
Finite means finished, complete, bounded
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
