On 17 Aug 2012, at 17:23, Roger wrote:
Wouldn't Godel incompleteness be the fatal flaw in at least some
Turing machines ?
It is a fatal flaw in the sense that it prevents all Turing machine,
including all universal machines, to be omniscient, even just about
arithmetic and machines.
Until the middle of your message i though that this was in other of my
lists, the haskell list haskell-c...@haskell.org.
Haskell is a language that uses monads . But in tis case, the concept is
borrowed from category theory. But the categorists probably borrowed it
from Leibniz .
Each monad
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers,
On 17 Aug 2012, at 20:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:30 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view (perhaps not yours) things are as they are and move as
they
do for a reason, called sufficient reason.
Science is the pursuit of sufficient reasons.
I doubt that. I think science is
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers,
0, +, and *, right?)
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and
religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit
of fear
because most people
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
Are there any explicitly known arithmetic propositions which must
be true or false under Peanao's axioms, but which are known to be
unprovable? If we
2012/8/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I ´m seduced and intrigued by the Bruno´s final conclussións of the COMP
hypothesis. But I had a certain disconfort with the idea of a simulation of
the reality by means of an algorithm for reasons
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:26, Roger wrote:
1) For wine-tasting -- What one must have is knowing that one knows
that the wine tastes good.
Such as one can prove that 1+1 =2 but one still has to accept
that as true.
Yes. In fact the proof that 1+1=2 will lead to the truth of 1+1=2,
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:40, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I apologize for my abruptness. Agreed, mathematics can have God-like
powers.
Nice.
By blueprint I meant mental pre-conception of a world. Thus there
had to be intelligence
before the Big Bang to create the world as such. This
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:49, Roger wrote:
What if I put on a fake moustache ? Or glasses ?
Would the computer still know it's me ?
Some will, some will not. Today, we can program a computer which
recognize better a fake signature than most human could. So, hand made
machines might be
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:57, Roger wrote:
I donb't seem to be able to convince Stanley Salthe of this, but
I think that life must have two irreplaceable qualities:
1) Autonomous intelligence, that intelligence of nature found in
our fine-tuned world.
2) What amounts to the same thing,
On 18 Aug 2012, at 03:40, Roger wrote:
Monads as computing elements, the supreme monad
as the central processing computer chip.
I think that Leibniz's monads are in some ways similar to computer
calculations,
for they exist in logical, rather than physical space, and all are
capable of
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Roger wrote:
By ontologically primitive entity do you mean substance ?
Well, if by substance you mean ontologically primitive. I can be OK.
But I prefer to avoid the term substance, as many interpret it in
the material sense.
Bruno
Roger ,
On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of
There is also the mathematical monad (see links below). I don't know if they
are the same as Leibniz's monads,
but there is a Leibniz programming language:
http://www.monads-security.org/
As the hardware development possibilities at Darmstadt were limited Prof.
Keedy worked there from 1982
Hi William R. Buckley
Sort of, but statements (written words on a page) are objective,
words read (as you are reading this) are subjective (in the mind)
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
-
Hi meekerdb
Can computers have orgasms ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-17, 14:43:24
Hi meekerdb -- I go with the dictionary:
ab穝tract/ab'strakt/Adjective:Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a
physical or concrete existence.
con穋rete/k鋘'kret/Adjective:Existing in a material or physical form; real or
solid; not abstract.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Hi Bruno Marchal
Intelligence such as had to be present before the Big Bang, is purposeful and
so looks forward and is pulled toward final causes.
Life is also like that, which puts life as implicitly present before the BB. It
strives and is purposeful (has entelechy).
Dead objects are
On 18 Aug 2012, at 13:59, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb -- I go with the dictionary:
ab·stract/abˈstrakt/
Adjective:
Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or
concrete existence.
con·crete/känˈkrēt/
Adjective:
Existing in a material or physical form; real or
Hi Bruno Marchal
What you say about evolution is probably true. But evolution (changes in dna)
is not the critical problem.
I was referring to the creation of life (dna), which absolutely must happen
before it evolves.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no
On 18 Aug 2012, at 14:47, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Being might be defined as =, meaning is. It is a state, not a thing.
Then if a state, it is a state relative to some other state. L says
that a more
dominant monad (superior state) will act on and will always act on a
less dominant
Hi Bruno Marchal
BTW how can they know if the calculation of pi is very precise if they
don't really know beforehand what its precise value should be ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
-
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:21, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I was trying to make monads more understandable, I realize that
chips are finite.
The philosophies of Plotinus Leibniz are built on L's different
logics.
a) The philosophy of Plotinus folllows what Leibniz calls the logic
of
Hi Bruno Marchal
How can that be ? I'll try to keep that in mind that the natural numbers are
concrete,
but to me at least concrete things are physical (exist in spacetime)
while numbers are nonphysical (exist outside of spacetime).
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say,
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:35, Roger wrote:
IMHO
Religion deals with the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven: the eternal
logic of Plato, final causes. Eternal truth,
not contingent facts. Either and always Yes or No.
Whoa! You are close to Platonism. Nice (with respect to comp).
Science
Hi Roger,
What you say about evolution is probably true. But evolution
(changes in dna) is not the critical problem.
I was referring to the creation of life (dna), which absolutely must
happen before it evolves.
This might have happened in one day. It is a local and contingent
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:50, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
BTW how can they know if the calculation of pi is very precise if they
don't really know beforehand what its precise value should be ?
Because PI is a clear concept, and you can prove that some algorithm
computes its exact value, as
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:53, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You might think of intelligence or the self or life as a striving
toward a goal.
Purposeful.
No problem with this. AI can be defined as the art of giving goal to
machines.
And we can already write a general program with a general
Hi Bruno Marchal
Admittedly, the more I dig into Leibniz, the more questions I have.
But I won't abandon him yet, thinking I misunderstood one of his
statements. Or perhaps Russell misunderstood what Leibniz meant.
According to Russell, Complete set of predicates means sufficient, complete
Roger,
In string theory the monads are responsible for the creation of space via
compactification of the extra dimensions of space. I have never understood
why, especially on the Mind/Brain forum where we already went thru all of
you present thinking, why you never accepted the compact manifolds
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
how can they know if the calculation of pi is very precise if they
don't really know beforehand what its precise value should be ?
But we do know the precise value of pi, 250 years ago Euler proved that pi
squared divided by 6
Hi Bruno Marchal
This is probably just my ignorance of what comp is, but there seems to
be a discrepancy between comp, which fits with Plato or Platonism,
and real life, which actually fits more with Aristotle. Plato is
ought to be and Aristotle is is in fact.
There is a troubling dualism
Hi Bruno Marchal
There is ontological genocide here of everything but numbers.
Concrete (below) is here used as a mathematical type,
the implication beuing that the world is made up exclusively of numbers.
What ever happened to the Higgs boson ? What natural number is it ?
Whatever happened
Hi John Clark
Thanks for that. I guess that the various approximations are
supposedly faster ways to get to that value. Thanks again.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
I don't think so, because the robot rat seems to keep running into things.
A real rat would skidaddle out of there.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they have their own
agendas.
We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction, and minimize
self-dissatisfaction. This
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
You're wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time. By the way, it would be helpful it you
didn't change the subject line every time you post, particularly if you
post several dozen times a day.
Very few if any high school students
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, as Leibniz puts it, you couldn't tell the difference, they would
seem to have windows, but actually, since substances,
being logical entities, cannot actually interact,
they all must communicate instead through the supreme monad,
(the CPU) which presumably reads
Hi Richard Ruquist
1) The is no master string to govern the strings,
so strings are unlike monads.
2) Strings are theoretical constructions, which have no meanings.
Monads have meanings derived from the bodies they refer to.
This goes way beyond algebra.
3) Monads can perceive
Hi John Clark
1) It is the subject line, after all...
I change the subject line to keep track
(I store my replies) of what my replies say.
And this is still about 0s and 1s.
2) I've lost the exact train of throught, but
from what I say, I believe I was trying to point
out that 0s and 1s or
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
1) I can accept your hedonism.
2) If you like, you let that be the salf's agenda.
I was thinking of ordinary people in the world.
IMHO A more realistic agenda would be money, sex, and power.
Those failing, you become religious.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Roger
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
1) I can accept your hedonism.
I do not, even though as musician it influences consciously or not. Leads
again to too many possible conceptions of selves to satisfy. The
computation of
On 18 Aug 2012, at 16:41, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Admittedly, the more I dig into Leibniz, the more questions I have.
But I won't abandon him yet, thinking I misunderstood one of his
statements. Or perhaps Russell misunderstood what Leibniz meant.
According to Russell, Complete set of
Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social
Science, London School of
Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.
Abstract: David Hume argued that values are the projections of natural human
I can not resit to say something here.
1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is a powerful person. It can gain the a status
of living god. It can even be a
I can not resit to say something here.
1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is a powerful person. It can gain the a status
of living god. In the past they
Dear Roger,
From what I have studied of Leibniz' Monadology and commentary by
many authors, it seems to me that all appearances of interactions is
given purely in terms of synchronizations of the internal action of the
monads. This synchronization or co-ordination seems very similar to
Roger,
It is the compactified dimensions that are the monads, not the strings.
Obviously you did not read and /or understand all I have been telling you.
Richard
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
1) The is no master string to govern the
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
I don't think so, because the robot rat seems to keep running into things.
A real rat would skidaddle out of there.
This experiment is not quite what you think. It used only 60,000 rat
neurons
On Saturday, August 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
I can not resit to say something here.
1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is
52 matches
Mail list logo
