Hi Russell Standish
It's not theory, it's measurement to 4 figures, with an error of plus or minus
0.87 %:
http://www.universetoday.com/13371/1373-billion-years-the-most-accurate-measurement-of-the-age-of-the-universe-yet/
13.73 Billion Years -- The Most Precise Measurement of the Age of
On 10 Nov 2012, at 11:41, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
OK, so it's not numbers alone (pure numbers),
something else is required.
Yes the laws of numbers. We believe in zero, and we believe that zero
has a successor, and then the successor itself has a successor. Two
common
On 10 Nov 2012, at 12:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Plato says that we all live in a dark cave, seeing only
shadows on the wall, eager to see the light outside.
So there is at least a duality which I call platonia (heaven)
and contingia (earth).
OK. For example with heaven played
On 10 Nov 2012, at 12:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The Devil is in the details, and why bother with numbers
when you could use words ?
No problem. People know better number operations, than words
operation, but you can choose any universal system you want, for the
starting
On 10 Nov 2012, at 12:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Chomsky says in effect that what we call platonia
is grammatically structured, hence the rapidity
that children learn language. At the least
one can form simple propositions such
I see the cat.
Yes. It is Plato's reminiscence.
On 10 Nov 2012, at 13:31, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I always emphasize that there is a evolutionary logic, which unlike
any other logic, is tautological, that is assume no axioms beyond
natural selection (which is tautological per se)
I will define here this logic as clear as I can.
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity'
when we consider each observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or
sheaf of an infinite number of computations. The chooser of A and
of B
On 11 Nov 2012, at 01:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It is an observable fact. is obviously true that if you live in a
society where everyone take something as true , no matter what, then
it is true for one of its members, you, for example.
That's correct. But that still does not make it
On 11 Nov 2012, at 02:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak
materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality)
COMP - NOT MAT
MAT - NOT COMP
NOT MAT or NOT COMP
I keep COMP as
On 11 Nov 2012, at 02:44, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak
materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical
reality)
COMP
On 11 Nov 2012, at 05:00, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain)
is required for intersubjectivity between minds. It is an
anti-solipsism
On 11 Nov 2012, at 18:09, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You said the Helsinki man will survive in two examples, in M AND
in W.
This follows from the comp assumption.
I no longer know what comp means much less what the comp
assumption is;
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the main problem is that you're striving to somehow get the Helsinki
man to remember the future,
To predict it. Precisely to predict its personal memory of the past, in
the future.
I have no idea what its personal
On 11/10/2012 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak
materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical
reality)
COMP -
On 11/10/2012 10:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak
materialism: the doctrine that there is
On 11/10/2012 11:43 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain)
is required for intersubjectivity
On 11/11/2012 12:24 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:43:29PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I'm not sure how Bruno argues for it, but my version goes something
like:
1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness
2) We expect
On 11/11/2012 12:53 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:44:36PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Only for some extended, loose definition of rational. The
non-deterministic choices themselves are not rationally determined.
Of course not
Rubbish, it not a measurement of the age of the universe, but rather
of the Hubble constant. It only corresponds to the age of the universe
in the context of a specific theory, usually the Friedmann universe,
which is one of the simplests solutions to Einstein's theory of
general relativity.
On 11/11/2012 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 12:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Plato says that we all live in a dark cave, seeing only
shadows on the wall, eager to see the light outside.
So there is at least a duality which I call platonia (heaven)
and contingia
On 11/11/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when
we consider each observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of
an infinite number of
On 11/11/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Nov 2012, at 02:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak
materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality)
COMP - NOT MAT
MAT -
On 11/11/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Nov 2012, at 05:00, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain)
is required for
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey all on the list,
Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this
teleportation
business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:13:38PM -0800, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
but rather the less appealing conclusion that, perhaps, the
teleportation required in
your entire
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:15:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be
made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move
On 11/11/2012 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have seen some physical terms, but no materialistic term.
To provide the logic, you need to gives the axioms to which the B, O, [], etc. obey, and
you should provide semantics, and make clear the relation between the symbols, and the
reality you
I have tried to post this several times. It appears I am again having
issues with my email software. I am sorry if it eventually posts multiple
times.
Hi John and Russell:
As far as I know all the Laws of Physics are based on observation and are
absent closed form proof.
Given the data I
On 11/11/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this definition that was posted in that forum: *An agent is rational if
he/she does whatever the modeler (i.e. economist) would do in his/her position.*
The problem is with does. Flipping a coin and doing X if heads and Y if tails can
On 11/11/2012 4:13 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey all on the list,
Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this
teleportation
On 11/11/2012 4:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
And many good reasons for thinking it is possible in a Multiverse, as
pointed out by David Deutsch. Time travel into the past is simply
equivalent to going somewhere else in the Multiverse, or to use the
Borge Library of Babel analogy, selecting a
On 11/12/2012 12:15 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/11/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this definition that was posted in that forum: *An agent is
rational if he/she does whatever the modeler (i.e. economist) would
do in his/her position.*
The problem is with does. Flipping a coin
On 11/11/2012 10:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
n 11/12/2012 12:15 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/11/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this definition that was posted in that forum: *An agent is rational if
he/she does whatever the modeler (i.e. economist) would do in his/her
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:54:10PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/11/2012 4:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
And many good reasons for thinking it is possible in a Multiverse, as
pointed out by David Deutsch. Time travel into the past is simply
equivalent to going somewhere else in the Multiverse,
2012/11/11 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 11/11/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we
consider each observer's 1p to
35 matches
Mail list logo
