David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Brent Meeker :
>
>> A good summary, David. However, there are some other possibilities.
>> Physics as now conceived is based on real and complex numbers. It can
>> only be approximated digitally. QM supposes true randomness, which
>> Turing machines can't produce.
Colin Hales wrote:
> Here's a nice pic to use in discussion from GEB. The map for a
> formal system (a tree). A formal system could not draw this picture.
Where's your proof of this assertion?
Brent
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
2009/8/14 Brent Meeker :
> A good summary, David. However, there are some other possibilities.
> Physics as now conceived is based on real and complex numbers. It can
> only be approximated digitally. QM supposes true randomness, which
> Turing machines can't produce. Again it may just be a ma
David Nyman wrote:
> Colin's recent interesting (not to say impassioned!) posts have - yet
> again - made me realise the fundamental weakness of my grasp of some
> of the discussions that involve Turing emulation - or emulability - on
> the list. So I offer myself once more as lead ignoramus in
>
Colin's recent interesting (not to say impassioned!) posts have - yet
again - made me realise the fundamental weakness of my grasp of some
of the discussions that involve Turing emulation - or emulability - on
the list. So I offer myself once more as lead ignoramus in
stimulating some feedback on
There is an explicit formula that maps N onto Q.. I found it some years
back.
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> ...
>>> 4) Key questions for the sequel, on which you can meditate:
>>>
>>> - is there a bijection between N and NxN? (NxN = the cartesian
>>> product of N with N)
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
4) Key questions for the sequel, on which you can meditate:
- is there a bijection between N and NxN? (NxN = the cartesian
product of N with N)
- is there a bijection between N and N^N?
You're making me think, Bruno. :-)
A bijection betwe
2009/8/13 Rex Allen :
> Causality. Causality. Causalty. Hmmm.
>
> So really I am arguing against causal explanations. I think this the
> core of my current argument. The feeling that something is happening
> *NOW* is just another example of qualia I think. The certainty of
> feeling that *t
On 12 Aug 2009, at 19:55, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> 1) Convince yourself that if A and B are finite sets, then there
> exists a bijection between A and B if and only if card(A) = card(B).
Only you can convince yourself. I try to help by going very slowly,
but people should really mind it y
On 13 Aug, 10:30, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2009, at 10:53, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Aug, 01:42, Colin Hales wrote:
>
> >> I am not saying humans are magical. I am saying that humans do /not/
> >> operate formally like COMP and that '/formally handling
> >> inconsistency/' is not t
On 13 Aug 2009, at 10:53, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13 Aug, 01:42, Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> I am not saying humans are magical. I am saying that humans do /not/
>> operate formally like COMP and that '/formally handling
>> inconsistency/' is not the same thing as '/delivering inconsistency
>> b
On 13 Aug, 01:42, Colin Hales wrote:
> I am not saying humans are magical. I am saying that humans do /not/
> operate formally like COMP and that '/formally handling
> inconsistency/' is not the same thing as '/delivering inconsistency by
> being an informal/ /system/'. BTW I mean informal
I owe Bruno and Brent a response also...it's in the works!
David:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> The standard view of physics is that things are causally closed
> 'out there', and this seems to rule out that such causation can
> in any sense be 'owned' by us.
Exactly.
2009/8/13 Colin Hales :
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 2009/8/12 Colin Hales :
>
>
> My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
> of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
> throwing away $millions based on a false belief. Their
On 13 Aug 2009, at 02:42, Colin Hales wrote:
> It starts with the simple posit that if COMP is true then all
> differences between a COMP world (AC) and the natural world (NC)
> should be zero under all circumstances and the AC/NC distinction
> would be false.
The difference between natu
15 matches
Mail list logo
