Described in this article: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
"This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist Richard
Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the bizarre
properties of quantum particles, such as their apparent ability to be in two
plac
>Well, it is better to assume just the axiom of, say, Robinson
>arithmetic. You assume 0, the successors, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
>You assume some laws, like s(x) = s(y) -> x = y, 0 ≠ s(x), the laws
>of addition, and multiplication. Then the existence of the universal
>machine and the UD follows as c
I willl not reply to all parts of your post in detail, because I think we
mainly discuss semantics on some specific issues. I feel we agree on most
things either way, it seems pointless to get
>
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> It's like a
>>> theory saying: "There is something, but don't ak
On 27 Dec 2009, at 18:13, Nick Prince wrote:
> Ok so I have come up with an argument to try and convince myself of
> step 8 but it still has some catches to it. If anyone sees that I am
> using incorrect thinking at any time please correct me.
> Misunderstanding means bad foundations.
>
> Up to s
Computer scientist Chris Thornton (http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/
christ/) has written a little known paper claiming that analogical
inference can be thought of as 'generalized induction':
'Analogy as Generalised Induction'
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/christ/papers/anlgcl_ind_inf
"The pap
On Dec 28, 8:29 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
>Actually we've used theories that were elegant and predictive but we didn't
>understand for a long time - it's called engineering.
> Brent
Yes indeed! Remember my thread challenging Bayesian Induction as the
basis for science? This is strong real-worl
6 matches
Mail list logo
