On 11 Oct 2013, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
And where you say:
Any way, I don't defend comp, I just show that comp makes physics
derivable in arithmetic, and that if you do it in some way, (using the
logic of self-reference) you can extract a general theory of qualia,
with its quanta part that you can compare with nature, and so
Dear Russell,
Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on
Bruno's
mathematical reductionism:
1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness
2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and
complex to support self-aware structures
On 11 Oct 2013, at 23:46, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How
Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the restaurant, is delicious.
Why would it be delicious, assuming COMP. How could the primary modalities
of things be good or bad assuming COMP? I know most people here think Craig
is a hand waver, but I honestly cannot understand how qualia emerge
On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:12, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form
a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an
On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:14, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they
On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:04, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 11:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The UD doesn't output anything. If it did, then certainly, the output
could not be an uncountable set due to the diagonalisation argument.
Yes, I wasn't speaking very precisely.
On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:05, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:42:06 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
infinity as those
On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:05 PM, Pierz wrote:
It does seem that the measure problem is an open one for comp, as
far as I can tell from Bruno's responses, but he seems
confident it's not insurmountable.
Bruno's so confident that he argues that there
On 12 Oct 2013, at 04:52, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of
On 12 Oct 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 7:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means.
On 12 Oct 2013, at 07:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 9:44 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Sometimes, Bruno, I get the feeling as though you are a chef at a
restaurant with a wonderful menu, but whenever anyone orders an
item on it, all you can do is give them exactly the same picture of
On 12 Oct 2013, at 07:33, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I think I'd like to
respond here:
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey all on the list,
Bruno, I must
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:34:42 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey Craig, thanks for the feedback. Please refer to below:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:10:39 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
The vocable I
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:49:22 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:32:49 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:37:52 PM UTC-4,
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:01:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:32:49 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:37:52 PM UTC-4,
Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work.
So how did evolution happen before humans existed?
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Russell,
Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on
Bruno's
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Do you believe that computers can perform any task a human can perform? If
not, what is an example of a relatively simple task that a computer could
never perform?
Perform to whose satisfaction? A cadaver can be made to twitch, or propped
On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:24, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
And where you say:
Any way, I don't defend comp, I just show that comp makes physics
derivable in arithmetic, and that if you do it in some way, (using the
logic of self-reference) you can extract a general theory of qualia,
with its quanta
On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:32:49 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:37:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 15:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work.
?
We need only Löbian-Turing intelligence which exists as a consequence
of elementary arithmetic.
The theory is:
identity logic +
((K, x), y) = x
(((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y,
Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative
universal numbers
Richard: Who other than humans can do that?
Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that
humans change the past?
Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism.
So far you
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement, or
do infinitely many come into existence in order
Not being prone to any Nobel prizes, I watch them pretty objectively.
Alfred Nobel established it due to his biting conscience: he wanted to
eliminate ALL wars by inventing (and starting to manufacture) the stuff he
deemed too aggressive to let people wage wars in his future: a wholesale
Bruno, I can't help it: I liked Richard's interjection. Arithmetics (even
in your fundamental vision - I suppose) needs 'human logic' to propagate
etc., no matter how the elements may be thought to pre-date humans. Does a
stone, or the 'root' of a plant, a microbe, or a cloud follow (evolve?
On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the restaurant, is delicious. Why would it
be delicious, assuming COMP. How could the primary modalities of things be good or bad
assuming COMP? I know most people here think Craig is a hand waver, but
On Sunday, 13 October 2013, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Because the article is consistent with my view that there is a fundamental
difference between quantitative tasks and aesthetic awareness. If there
were no difference, then I would expect
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are
these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into two infinite subsets
on a binary measurement, or do
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:39:32AM -0700, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Dear Russell,
Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on
Bruno's
mathematical reductionism:
1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness
2) We expect to find ourselves in an
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:11:20 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Do you believe that computers can perform any task a human can perform? If
not, what is an example of a relatively simple task that a computer could
never perform?
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:27:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:32:49 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013, Craig
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:54:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the restaurant, is delicious.
Why would it be delicious, assuming COMP. How could the primary modalities
of things be good or bad
On 13 October 2013 17:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe in philosophical zombies. I use puppet because a puppet
implies an absence of conscious presence, which is an ordinary condition of
macrocosmic objects as we seem them, because the sensation associated with
On 10/12/2013 9:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 October 2013 17:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe in philosophical zombies. I use puppet because a puppet
implies an
absence of conscious presence, which is an ordinary condition of
35 matches
Mail list logo
