Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
/ Page 115 /
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only
Hi Bruno Marchal
You said:
God, matter, consciousness are never computable
Is that because the above are nonphysical ?
If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ?
I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other
than numbers can be computable.
Suppose you do
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm having trouble understanding you today. You say:
Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities,
some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines.
Wikipedia says:
Epistemology (i/??p?st?'m?l?d?i/ from Greek
Hi Craig Weinberg
That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe
that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would
be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane,
but what if he had none ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver:
Hi John Clark
Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to
investigation.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:07
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On
Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver:
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
Shechtman also did work on quasicrystals at NIST,
as a visiting scientist in the same materials division
that I was in. I don't know why he got such a shoddy
treatment-- whether it was political or antisemitic or
professional jealousy. There was one world- famous
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
CS Peirce believed that scientific laws were habits
or laws developed by nature. So, according to CSP:
Firstness= random
Secondness = deterministic
Thirdness= habit or law
Rupert Sheldrake has similar ideas with his
morphic resonances.
As for myself, I'm too
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi John Clark
Einstein is as welcome to his beliefs as Christians
are to theirs and as your scepticism is to you.
None of this is provable, so please keep your
beliefs to yourself.
Roger, you have to admit this is a
On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.
Hi Roger,
This is a good
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you disagree that swapping a carbon atom for another carbon atom in
the brain will leave brain function and consciousness unchanged?
I don't believe that we will necessarily know that our consciousness is
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that
there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that
such postulation is unconscious makes
On 21 Jan 2013, at 19:00, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
Science had to fight every inch of the way against
On 21 Jan 2013, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you
admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If
you insist on redefining common words (like God and
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence
of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that
there is anything without postulating it by faith.
No, postulating it by hypothesis.
You miss the point. It is an hypothesis when we
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, scientists are current theologians. But as such they are
less modern than the greeks. In particular, they hide the
metaphysical hypotheses.
Because they've found that it is better to start from
On 21 Jan 2013, at 23:14, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical
Truth,
does that mean: complying with human logic (any)?
Not really. Arithmetical truth is independent of the humans. 17 would
be prime even if the humans did not exist.
According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell
has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
==.
The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14.
The number of
On 22 Jan 2013, at 03:02, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:34, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17
On 22 Jan 2013, at 09:19, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
/ Page 115 /
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin
On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You said:
God, matter, consciousness are never computable
Is that because the above are nonphysical ?
Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows
from the UD Argument.
If consciousness is not
On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then
On 22 Jan 2013, at 13:19, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to
investigation.
same for weak materialism (see my previous post to you).
Bruno
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that
there is
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell
has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information .
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is
wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the
primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter.
We are,
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever
Very nice explanation.
Congratulation
There is only one small problem: It is too complex.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough
/ Albert Einstein. /
==.
On Jan 22, 6:28 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue,
What could be simpler than splitting the 26 dimensions into two groups
that are both superstring theories. It certainly is less complicated
than General Relativity
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Very nice explanation.
Congratulation
There
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:53:17 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Do you disagree that swapping a carbon atom for another carbon atom in
the brain will leave brain function and consciousness unchanged?
On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:42:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:15:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:23:37 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear
that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism
is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
have
Sorry. I don't need 'the 26 dimensions' to explain
'a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness'
For me ( as a peasant ) enough one dimension to give
the scheme of the primary conditions of existence.
..
Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
==.
At first I take the
Richard:
and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is
like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be
more accurate) and then
On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to
drive
through the streets of Los Angeles.
You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer.
Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
Stephen and Russell
I have been following this thread with interest as it relates to some
research I am currently conducting. In Algorithmic Thermodynamics Baez
and Stay make the following analogies:
1) The program runtime (E) is analogous to the energy of a gas in a
container.
2) The length
On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
javascript: wrote:
You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only
materialism is
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You seem to not having yet
44 matches
Mail list logo
