Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Mercredi 12 Juillet 2006 23:54, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno-computationalism is standard computationalism+platonism.
Since I reject platomnism, I reject Bruno-computationalism
(whilst having rather less problem with the standard computational
thesis, that cognition is
Hi Tom, Hi George,
George, and others, you can skip the partial answer to Tom, and go
directly to K, the master set below.
Tom seems to propose an alternate proof, which does not convince me,
although I cannot right now provide a full counter-example. Note that
the section K, the Master Set
Le 18-juil.-06, à 12:30, 1Z a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux: Because if you were in a simulation and you have
managed to get out of it,
how can you know you have reach the bottom level of reality (ie: the
material
world then) ? How can you know the new real world you are now in is
the real
Le 17-juil.-06, à 20:54, John M a écrit :
In my 'wholistic' (not 'holistic!) 'taste' (:I don't
call my narrative a worldview or hypo or theory:) the
entire interconnection generates ANY further item
(step in any process) with no excludability of any.
One cannot pick ONE without tacitly
Le 18-juil.-06, à 16:37, 1Z a écrit :
A computer simulation is obviously computable.
Not necessarily from the first person povs.
The word emerge is often used to hide magic.
I agree with you. Often, but not necessarily always.
What actually exists cannot emerge from mere truths.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-juil.-06, à 16:37, 1Z a écrit :
A computer simulation is obviously computable.
Not necessarily from the first person povs.
It is far from obvious that a simulation even
contains 1stP POV's. In any case
that doesn't effect the logic: simulations
*might* be
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-juil.-06, à 18:06, 1Z a écrit :
I mean that is what material exists regardless of any mathematical
justification.
So this is your main hypothesis: what is material exist.
Now my problem is that a term like material is very vague in physics,
Huh ? Physics
Bruno and 1Z:
both of you write extraordinary wise remarks in
approx. 3-4 times as many words than I can attentively
folloow.
However - with mostly agreeing with the positions of
BOTH OF YOU - I may remark (hopefully in less words??)
*
I consider the epistemic development of our experience
Hi Bruno
Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred
techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the
pollution problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve the
same problem by preparing vegetarian meals.
As a mathematician you are trying
Bruno,
\I don't see relevance in your example. I do not argue against singling out
ONE number amongst all, I argue against singling out numbers amongst
nuimbers AND non-numbers.
In this sense numbers make sense only in relation with non-numbers.
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno
10 matches
Mail list logo
