Bruno,
Comments and questions are interspersed below.
marty
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July
John Mikes wrote:
> Brian,
> I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
>
> /"In modern cosmology, a /
>
> /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes"/
>
> that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many
> 'impossibilities' in the sen
Thanks.
How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence
hypothesis fit or not fit into this?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion,
> which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with
> Descartes, in the mechan
The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion,
which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with
Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which
can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist
hypothesis in the
I'm ignorant of what you mean by "mind body problem." Can you explain
this or send me some place on the net that explains it?
Thanks.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not
> aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ...
I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not
aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he
is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory).
The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his
unconscious use of the
On 02 Jul 2009, at 00:22, John Mikes wrote:
> I don't deny the practicality of applying 'numbers-based' science in
> sending a man to Mars, but it is NOT the numbers that does the job.
> It is the complexity of the state of the art we reached, which
> includes science, technology, skills,
You are quick!
On 02 Jul 2009, at 18:42, m.a. wrote:
>
>
> Could you tell me if you understand and/or remember those
> definitions (where a and b denoting arbitrary sets):
>
> (a INTERSECTION b) = {x SUCH-THAT (x BELONGS-TO a) and (x BELONGS-TO
> b)}
>
> (a UNION b) = {x SUCH THAT (x BELONGS
Could you tell me if you understand and/or remember those definitions (where
a and b denoting arbitrary sets):
(a INTERSECTION b) = {x SUCH-THAT (x BELONGS-TO a) and (x BELONGS-TO b)}
(a UNION b) = {x SUCH THAT (x BELONGS-TO a) or (x BELONGS-TO b)}
Can you compute
{1, 2, 7, 789
Well to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, a way to modify the
statement's wording might be:
In modern cosmology, a multiverse is defined to be a collection of all
physical universes consistent with the laws of physics, whatever those
might be.
That leaves room for physics revising itse
Brian,
I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
*"In modern cosmology, a **multiverse is defined to be a collection of
possible physical universes"*
that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many
'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I
Hi Marty,
On 01 Jul 2009, at 18:57, m.a. wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
> I'm responding to the quiz (see below). What does
> "high non booleanity" mean in the context of para.2?
>
We will need more math for the details, but "boolean" refer to
classical or even platonist logic, when appl
If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read.
ronaldheld wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
> comments?
> >
>
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsu
14 matches
Mail list logo
