John M wrote:
>
> --- Georges Quénot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> John M wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Don't be a sourpus, I was not attacking YOU.
>> Well. I do not know exactly why I felt concerned.
>> I probably missed your point.
>>
>>> [...]
>>> By George! (not Georges) don't you imply such thing
--- Georges Quénot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John M wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > Don't be a sourpus, I was not attacking YOU.
>
> Well. I do not know exactly why I felt concerned.
> I probably missed your point.
>
> > [...]
> > By George! (not Georges) don't you imply such
> things
> > int
Bruno:
let me draw your attention to one little phrasing in
Hal's (and everybody else's, I presume, as I read
these posts)- text:
"If we assume..."
And if we do not?
Or: - many think otherwise.
John
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 17-mars-06, à 20:27, Hal Finney a éc
--- Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But the tape can also hold an encoding of the Turing
> machine to
> perform the interpretation. This is the essence of
> the "compiler
> theorem". One can simply iterate this process such
> that there is no
> "concrete" machine interpreting t
HAL, it was interesting to read "your version" of some
concepts. It is much more involved than just to reply
ny pushing the button when reading.
Glossarymaking is a sweaty work, more than a
vocabulary or a thesaurus. I for one identify
'existence' as some "difference" - without which
nothing can
George,
You got it very decently, thank you. One question:
what do you mean by a 'simulated character'?
Then again IMO no person can differentiate whether he
sees the 'reality' or has an illusion. (I mean: the
perception of reality, of course).
Illusion is usually a wake-phenomenon, dream: sle
Georges Quénot wrote:
> There might be universes interacting one with each other
> (though from my viewpoint I would tend to consider a set
> of interactive universes as a single universe) but it
> might also be that the one in which we live is among
> the ones that are not causally connected to
A few comments:
IMO it is necessary to make a distinction between existence, reality,
and physical reality.
My latest model:
Existence: A property that should be reserved for the basis of the
specific "everything" model such as "numbers".
Reality: A property of any entity derived from the
Danny and Russell:
--- danny mayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may accept your bootstrapping argument,...<
which Russell formulated like this (brief excerpt,
sorry Russell, if I left out the essence):
>>" ...What I'm tryng to say here is that the
description is a complete specification o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I see. So from you viewpoint the distinction between physics
>> and mathematics appears as natural
>
> It is grounded in the logical distinction between necessity and
> contingency.
This distinction is a matter of viewpoint.
Con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>
>> My 2. and 3. remain anyway.
>>
>> Georges.
>
> "2. There may well exist a "Harry Potter universe" that
> includes a counterpart of you but it is not causaly
> related to our universe (too far for instance) and
> this is why we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a "Harry Potter universe" including
a counterpart of you would be a solution.
>>> 1) Any configur
Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >>>
> What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical
> object
> real and others abstract...
> >>> A non-mathematical pr
Georges Quénot wrote:
> My 2. and 3. remain anyway.
>
> Georges.
"2. There may well exist a "Harry Potter universe" that
includes a counterpart of you but it is not causaly
related to our universe (too far for instance) and
this is why we cannot observe it. "
The idea that some uni
Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
> >>equations of which a "Harry Potter universe" including
> >>a counterpart of you would be a solution.
> >
> > 1) Any configuration of material
Russell,
Thats a good summary. However, my issue with your conclusion is this:
even if I accept that a "machine" or a "prime mover" is not necessary,
such explanations are still part of the plenitude and therefore part of
reality. So if everything is reducible to math or information, even
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 15-mars-06, à 17:51, Georges Quenot a écrit :
>
*If* comp is true. I am not sure of that.
>>> Me too. But it is the theory I am studying. Also comp provides some
>>> neat "etalon philosophy" to compare with other theories. The advantage
>>> of comp (which I recal
This is the way I put the argument in my upcoming book. You can also
read the Universal Dovetailer Argument in Bruno Marchal's SANE04
paper.
\item That a description logically capable of observing itself is
enough to bootstrap itself into existence. Let me speak to this by
means of an example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
>>> A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficien
19 matches
Mail list logo
