Le 18-févr.-06, à 01:05, Kim Jones a écrit :
Which is very interesting, isn't it? People do seem want the kind of
modelled structure for their existence that theology projects. Even
though G means we can never know the truth of it, theology tells us it
is nonetheless there.
Like G*.
Has
Dear Stephen,
Kim Jones' post prompts me to ask whether or not a
"self-referentially-correct Loebian machine" involves an infinite
regress or a non-well founded structure. Given that it is typical to
include the idea of a non-prescripted interview, where the questions
can have follow ups b
"Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and Stoughton
1995) is "a bloddy good read" as we like to say here in Australia. It
is, in some ways the *kind* of revisionist theological tome the
modern world badly needs. For this reason, God speaks in a language
that any idiot can
Hi John,
If I remember correctly Robert Rosen does not accept Church Thesis.
This explains some fundamental difference of what we mean respectively
by "machine".
I use the term for digitalizable machine, which, with Church thesis, is
equivalent with "programs", or with anything a computer can
"Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
> "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and
Stoughton
> 1995) is "a bloddy good read" as we like to say here in Australia
I think myself that one problem with such books is that they are very
Christian oriented. I recently heard a lecture by
Bruno,
Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of
the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it
seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides
some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives insight
into
6 matches
Mail list logo
