On 11/1/2012 1:19 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those
functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed
On 30.10.2012 17:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/30/2012 4:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In this chapter, Van Fraassen has considered a map as a model for a
typical model. A map is in the objective world, as well as a
scientific model, but to use the map one has to find out where
On 30.10.2012 16:25 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 12:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
You talk for example about integers as a framework for everything.
Fine. Yet, I would like to understand how mankind through it
development has invented integers. How comp would help
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to
A nice video
http://www.newscientist.com/video/1872152752001-what-is-reality.html
You have to ignore a short sponsor message at the beginning.
Evgenii
P.S. I have found it by
http://magpie73.livejournal.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 11/1/2012 6:54 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King
On 31 Oct 2012, at 19:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how
can they dream?
Yes, the universal
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My
On 01 Nov 2012, at 05:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying
no to the doctor.
It implies not saying yes qua computatio. It implies NOT
understanding what Church thesis is about, as to show it
On 01 Nov 2012, at 06:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: (actually it was Bruno)
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call
those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ...
On 11/1/2012 5:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.10.2012 17:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/30/2012 4:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In this chapter, Van Fraassen has considered a map as a model for a
typical model. A map is in the objective world, as well as a
scientific model,
On 01.11.2012 18:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/1/2012 5:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.10.2012 17:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/30/2012 4:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In this chapter, Van Fraassen has considered a map as a model
for a typical model. A map is in the
On 01 Nov 2012, at 11:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.10.2012 16:25 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 12:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
You talk for example about integers as a framework for everything.
Fine. Yet, I would like to understand how mankind through it
On 01 Nov 2012, at 14:25, Stephen P. King wrote:
But I agree with comp up to the strong version of step 8!
But then you have to find the flaw in step 8. as step 8 is done in
comp, without adding any assumptions, of course.
I accept comp with a weak version of step 8 or, I think
On 01.11.2012 18:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 11:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
“Absolute Spirit is the fundamental reality. But in order to create
the world, the Absolute manifests itself, or goes out of itself in
a sense, the Absolute forgets itself and empties
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a
concrete robust physical universe.
?
Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly
do assume a primitive physical reality.
In step 8, it is done for the reductio
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the you before the duplication or the you after the duplication?
All the you after, are the you before, by definition of comp.
OK, but the you before is not the you after. The Helsinki man knows nothing
about Moscow or
On 11/1/2012 11:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or
On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call
those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed bijection from N x N to N. So B(x,y) is a
On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as explain,
solve, interacting and emulating, mean in an atemporal
setting? You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...
Study a
The distinction between correlation and causality occasionally comes
up in this discussion group, so I thought this paper might be of
interest.
Disclaimer - I haven't read it, but it is published in Science, and
one of the authors (Robert May) I have the utmost respect for.
Let me know if you
On 11/1/2012 12:23 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Don't get me started on reductionism! I don't believe in it as I
don't believe in ontologically primitive objects that have
particular properties.
Then I don't see how you can make an ontological bet. You're at the
table,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm talking about *every experiment* that has been done. There is nothing
to misunderstand. When I change my mind, through my own thought or though
some image or suggestion, that change is reflected as a passive
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm talking about *every experiment* that has been done. There is nothing
to misunderstand. When I change my mind, through my own
On 11/1/2012 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have already explained it over and over. You aren't listening to me. I understand
every bit of your argument. It is my argument that you don't understand. I used to
believe what you believe. I know better now.
The question is how do you know
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm talking about *every experiment* that has been done. There is nothing
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:03:18 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 11/1/2012 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have already explained it over and over. You aren't listening to me.
I understand
every bit of your argument. It is my argument that you don't understand.
I used to
On 10/31/2012 9:48 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Everyone:
I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a discussion
regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe starting in a
simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of
Physics”
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:03:21 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg
31 matches
Mail list logo
