Hi Kim, Hi Marty and others,
So it is perhaps time to do some math. Obviously, once we are open to
the idea that the fundamental reality could be mathematical, it is
normal to take some time to do some mathematics. Many people seems
also to agree here that the computationalist hypothesis
Thank you for starting this discussion. I have only joined recently and
have little knowledge of your research. To see it laid out in the
sequence you describe should make it clear to me what it is all about.
I'm particularly interested in the interaction between consciousness and
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by
{0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
Let N be the biggest number in the set {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
Exercise: does the number N+1 belongs to the
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:43:59 +0200
From: tor...@dsv.su.se
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it by the
On 02 Jun 2009, at 18:54, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thank you for starting this discussion. I have only joined recently
and
have little knowledge of your research. To see it laid out in the
sequence you describe should make it clear to me what it is all about.
I'm particularly interested
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by
{0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
Let N be the biggest number in the set {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
Thanks for the links. I'll look over them and hopefully I'll understand
what I see. At least if I have questions I can ask though maybe not in
this thread.
I don't yet know precisely what you mean by a machine but I do have
superficial knowledge of Turing machines; I'm assuming there is a
The beauty of all this, Brian, is that the correct (arithmetically)
universal machine will never been able to answer the question are you
a machine?, but she (it) will be able to bet she is a (unknown)
machine. She will never know which one, and she will refute all
theories saying which
On 02 Jun 2009, at 18:46, Kelly Harmon wrote:
First, in the multiplication experience, the question of your choice
is not addressed, nor needed.
The question is really: what will happen to you. You give the right
answer above.
You're saying that there are no low probability worlds?
What is the definition of a machine? I have a sense that there
is an intuitive one but not an explicit one, appropriate to the
discussions here.
James
- Original Message
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:29:47
Bruno,
I appreciate the simplicity of the examples. My answers follow the
questions.marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
= begin
===
1) SET
Informal
11 matches
Mail list logo
