Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic
(such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself. Such a
formalism is allways a special case, but Cooper warns of the danger that
classical logic is not recognized as such. He calls for a relativistic
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic
(such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself.
Meaning what ? That the formalism might not be giving answers
that are really right ? How would we tell ? using some
other logic ? Or
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-06, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
I really think that we should infer both the substantial world and the
numerical world from the middleground so to speak, from our
observations.
But why should we infer a substantial world? Substantial or primary
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Would you agree that this imaginary 'substantial
world' is a figment of our existing (math - comp
based) logic and with another one it would be 'that
way', not 'this way'? Inescabapbly!?
I guess you know that the sum of the 100 first odd numbers is 100^2.
If you
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what members
of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival
in the evolutionary
biological sense. So the majority can
George Levy wrote:
Stephen Paul King wrote:
little discussion has
been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or
fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen?
Hi Stephen
Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I
Peter,
would you consider to identify the 'observer'?
(Maybe not as an O -moment...)
Many think of The Observer AS me or fellow humans
while there may be a broader view, like e.g. anything
catching info which comes closer to (my) 'conscious'
definition.
The observer seems so fundamental in the
You seem to think that evolution (or matter, or the multiverse) must adapt
to a preordained logic. Adjusting, approximately, to a fixed metaphysical
truth.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För 1Z
Skickat: den 10 juli 2006 15:58
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
(Skip to 1Z's reply)
If you want to judge what is better in terms of
survival,
you need to use logic.
And then you may be still wrong, things sometimes
occur (in our terms - see below) as illogical or
even: counterproductive. Human
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what members
of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival
in the evolutionary
biological sense. So the
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what
members of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their
survival in the evolutionary
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what
members of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their
survival in the
John M wrote:
Peter,
would you consider to identify the 'observer'?
(Maybe not as an O -moment...)
No, I wouldn't care to. There are theories that talk
about observations, measurement and so on
(that's epistemology), but there aren't any that
tell you what an observer *is* ontologically.
Brent Meeker:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what
members of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
You seem to think that evolution (or matter, or the multiverse) must adapt
to a preordained logic.
No, no , noo !
I am trying to get away from the idea that logic needs to
be propped up by some external authority. The validity
of logic comes about from the lack of any
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Brent Meeker:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what
members of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their
John M wrote:
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
(Skip to 1Z's reply)
If you want to judge what is better in terms of
survival,
you need to use logic.
And then you may be still wrong, things sometimes
occur (in our terms - see below) as illogical or
even:
Tom Caylor wrote:
OK. I noticed that you can get the Universal Machine (UM) to run for
ever even without the + 1. If I think of the program for G as a big
case statement with cases 1, 2, 3, to infinity, then the case for k
will contain the code for, or better yet a call to (hence the name
I certainly didn't mean this as a criticism. I remember when I was8 or 9years old, reading about how animals developed this or that physical characteristic in order to cope with a particular environment. This was in the context of a discussion about evolutionary theory, but I didn't get it
19 matches
Mail list logo
