Le 21-oct.-06, à 06:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
The UD is both massively parallel
and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and
executes them all together, but one step at a time. The D is for
dovetailing which is a technic for emulating
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from coincidental ones. How does a
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin wrote :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from coincidental ones. How does a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from
Le 21-oct.-06, à 02:12, David Nyman a écrit :
Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in
fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the
data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the
data'. And my point is also that a model
David Nyman wrote:
1Z wrote:
Computationalism doesn't imply that. a conflict between
computationalism and physicalism would be be astonshing
and highly significant.
It certainly would be astonishing to a 'physicalist'. But, as you have
remarked, our agenda here is more ecumenical.
David Nyman wrote:
1Z wrote:
1) 'Computationalism', a theory (implicitly or explicitly) based on
materialism, although in a manner which (witness our recent dialogues),
at least so far as its putative association with consciousness is
concerned, in an entirely 'relational' manner
1Z wrote:
Computationalism doesn't imply that. a conflict between
computationalism and physicalism would be be astonshing
and highly significant.
It certainly would be astonishing to a 'physicalist'. But, as you have
remarked, our agenda here is more ecumenical.
A conflict between
1Z wrote:
Maybe physics is relations all the way down.
Hmm... I think this is pretty close to what Bruno is saying, using
AR+CT+UDA as the 'placeholder' for the universe of relational
possibility. But, to differentiate your own views, what would you
propose as the relata (i.e. when you've gone
1Z wrote:
1) 'Computationalism', a theory (implicitly or explicitly) based on
materialism, although in a manner which (witness our recent dialogues),
at least so far as its putative association with consciousness is
concerned, in an entirely 'relational' manner which is extremely opaque
David Nyman wrote:
1Z wrote:
Maybe physics is relations all the way down.
Hmm... I think this is pretty close to what Bruno is saying, using
AR+CT+UDA as the 'placeholder' for the universe of relational
possibility. But, to differentiate your own views, what would you
propose as the
=
STEP 5: The rolling proof
NOTES:
1) There is only 1 proof in EC. (Symbolically it has been designated U(.)
above)
2) It consists of 1 collection of basic EC primitives (axioms)
3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 21-oct.-06, à 06:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
The UD is both massively parallel
and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and
executes them all together, but one step at a time. The D is for
dovetailing
===
STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms'
(*)
The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related
fluctuations.
The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet.
No concept of place. The number of spatial
14 matches
Mail list logo
