On 23 January 2014 19:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:22, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
We need the Becoming that is implicit in the moving flashlight, at
least to give us a window of finite
On 23 January 2014 19:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
With quantum field theory we are still using the idea of a single
space-time manifold to glue it all together but this itself could be one
of the problems that we have in physics.
Yes, that's true.
On 23 January 2014 19:41, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Whaddya reckon? To me it makes an elegant sense, though I have no idea of
its testable. I suspect not, but it seems a lot cleaner than the entire
backup idea, OR the idea of a particle that carries its autobiography
under its arm.
It
On 23 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think of
as entities - adding
On 22 Jan 2014, at 19:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 January 2014 09:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I said the fl;ashlight wasn't needed, so it isn't there, and
so nothing moves it around. The pigeonholes stand for states of
consciousness, so they perceive what it would
On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I once heard a cosmologist say that you can't feel the force of repulsion
due to cosmological expansion between your fingers because at that distance
it is imperceptibly small. But if your fingers were at either end of the
universe
On 22 Jan 2014, at 22:42, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at
On 22 Jan 2014, at 23:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:11:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It is a phisical definition of computation in the physical world, to
distinguish what physical phenomena
Ah, right now I understand your point.
If the mathematical multiverse hipothesis is correct, in a certain
way, not even today there is time neither init neither end. time is an
observation made by living beings inside. We live in a mathematical
equation that has no such thing as time when looked
Yes, dark energy *is* what he was talking about. Thanks for that
clarification. The original expansion is just a result of the residual
inertia of the big bang.
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:40:03 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only to make the UDA non valid. It works, if Brent meant a
mathematical ultrafinitism. But this change comp, like it
On 23 Jan 2014, at 00:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/21/2014 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why
On 23 Jan 2014, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 2:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the
On 23 Jan 2014, at 01:57, Pierz wrote:
Excellent jessem, thanks. This line from the abstract of the first
paper you cite pretty much summarises the changed understanding of
MWI I was getting at:
Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather,
to many local copies of
On 23 Jan 2014, at 03:25, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
By having interacted in the (distant) past. If the universe is a
pure quantum state then it has zero entropy, which means that all
the complexity and information we see is a local
On 23 January 2014 22:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, dark energy *is* what he was talking about. Thanks for that
clarification. The original expansion is just a result of the residual
inertia of the big bang.
OK, cool, sorry to be nitpicking.
--
You received this message because
On 23 Jan 2014, at 06:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A set (of natural numbers) is creative if
1) it is RE (and thus is some w_k)
2) its complement (N - w_k) is productive, and this means that for
all w_y included in, we can
On 23 Jan 2014, at 06:18, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide
to take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea,
instead of using the less gibberish sense, to focus on
p718 of Gravitation is concerned with the expansion factor of the universe,
and points out that it is only applicable above the scale of galactic
clusters, which is to say the scale at which things aren't gravitationally
bound. If I read it aright, it appears to be showing that in an isotropic
and
Well not sorry, exactly, I wanted the clarification! :-)
On 23 January 2014 23:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 22:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, dark energy *is* what he was talking about. Thanks for that
clarification. The original expansion is just a result
On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can differ
from natural understanding which is not susceptible to any mereological
Systems argument.
If any of you have use passwords which are based on a
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think
of as entities - adding raindrops isn't 1+1, nature is really
adding something like 10^25 atoms to another 10^25. But it _does_
add bosons in a
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
We need the Becoming that is implicit in the moving flashlight,
at least to give us a window of finiteduration
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think
of as entities - adding raindrops
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:42, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 00:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 04:23, LizR wrote:
I'm going to take a punt and assume the order in which things are
ANDed together doesn't matter, in which case the above comes out as
equal
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:44, LizR wrote:
I think after looking at your next post that I have messed up []p -
p and therefore, no doubt, everything else. I need to do the truth
table business ... later!
No, you were 100% right. You confirms my feeling (when going in my bed
yesterday
On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:57, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. A last little exercise in the same vein, for the night. (coming
from a book by Jeffrey):
Alicia was singing this:
Everybody loves my baby. My baby loves nobody but me.
Can we
Dear Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 23:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:11:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It is a phisical
Liz,
Apparently you don't understand QM very well. A decoherence PRODUCES an
entanglement. All particle interactions result in entanglements of the
interacting particles on the relations between their particle properties
imposed by the conservation laws that govern particle interactions.
Liz,
It was Pierz that said that's not what HE meant, not me.
It would be nice if you would actually READ and comprehend what you are
replying to for a change. You are obviously replying to your own prejudices
here rather than to the actual post which you didn't even read correctly!
Edgar
Liz,
Close but not quite correct. It's not a matter of whether the universe is
isotropic or homogeneous that's important, its what its local mass energy
content is that determines whether that locality expands with the Hubble
expansion or not.
If some locality of the universe is isotropic
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:46:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Consciousness uses computation to offload that which is too monotonous to
find meaningful any longer. That is the function of computation,
Laws of form
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:46:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness uses computation to offload that which is too monotonous
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can
differ
from natural understanding which is not susceptible to any
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly no to that question,
making his assumption (existence of a primitive sense) coherent. But
he used his assumption to justify his negation of comp, but that is
usually
On 23 January 2014 08:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Let us take the WM-duplication. Suppose that the guy in Helsinki is told
that the randomly chosen unique flaslight sequence will illuminate W
just after the duplication (if this makes sense). Should he decide that
P(W) = 1 and
On 23 Jan 2014, at 13:34, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 23:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:11:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free Will is the inability to predict your own actions even in a
stable environment.
Yes, that's (almost) my definition.
It can't be unless you've recently changed your definition. You said on May
11, 2010:
I don't
On 23 Jan 2014, at 15:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:46:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness uses computation to offload that which is too
monotonous to find meaningful any longer. That is the
On 1/23/2014 1:34 AM, Pierz wrote:
Yes, dark energy *is* what he was talking about. Thanks for that clarification. The
original expansion is just a result of the residual inertia of the big bang.
I don't think you can look at it that way. If were just the motion, as away from the
center of
On 1/23/2014 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only to make the UDA non valid. It works, if Brent meant a mathematical
On 1/23/2014 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 00:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/23/2014 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add
On 23 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly no to that question,
making his assumption (existence of a primitive sense) coherent. But
he used his assumption to justify his
Hi Stephen,
Finally some time to get back to this interesting discussion. Sorry for the
delay...
No, I don't understand your argument that we can only use the notion of a
single computational space if we wish to consider a timeless version of
Computation? That simply doesn't follow.
As long
Ghibbsa,
The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT to
account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark
matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see that your mention
of a gravity gradient I have to get past is relevant...
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide to
take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea, instead of
using the less gibberish sense, to focus on what we really try to talk and
share about.
On 23 Jan 2014, at 17:05, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Let us take the WM-duplication. Suppose that the guy in Helsinki is
told that the randomly chosen unique flaslight sequence will
illuminate W just after the duplication (if this
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Finally some time to get back to this interesting discussion. Sorry for
the delay...
No, I don't understand your argument that we can only use the notion of a
single computational space if we
On 24 January 2014 07:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/23/2014 1:34 AM, Pierz wrote:
Yes, dark energy *is* what he was talking about. Thanks for that
clarification. The original expansion is just a result of the residual
inertia of the big bang.
I don't think you can look
On 21 January 2014 05:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Now the obvious effect of this (as I'm the first to have pointed out so far
as I know) is that space will necessarily be warped at the boundaries of
galaxies, and as is well know from GR any curvature of space produces
Dear Stephen,
I am at a loss when I want to decipher meaning from machine-talk. My
excellent old musical hearing deteriorated to shambles: I 'hear', but to
decipher the meaning I need the harmonics what I can get (not alwys) from
natural voice talking. Is there some 'readable' to explain Donald
On 24 January 2014 07:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course it depends on what DE is. The most common theory is that it's
just the cosmological constant term in Einstein's equation. If that's the
case then it's just another geometric effect of the dynamics of space.
It's not
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:18:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly no to that question,
making his
On 24 January 2014 02:34, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Close but not quite correct. It's not a matter of whether the universe is
isotropic or homogeneous that's important, its what its local mass energy
content is that determines whether that locality expands with the Hubble
On 23 January 2014 23:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most
On 1/23/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote:
This appears to be the fundamental bone of contention between you and Brent. He
appears to believe arithmetic is a human invention which relates to reality because,
well, (waves hands, and cunningly slips AR hat on) ... it just does, somehow.
It relates to
On 24 January 2014 00:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[]p - p
Here, there is no more truth table available, and so you have to think.
The Leibniz semantic (the only semantic we have defined) provides all the
information to solve the puzzle.
I read this as p is true in worlds
On 24 January 2014 01:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:57, LizR wrote:
Everybody loves my baby. Therefore my baby loves my baby. But my baby
loves nobody but me. Therefore - the only way this can be true - is if
Alicia *is* her baby. So the answer is yes!
Dear John,
Thank you for that critique! It helps. As to Hoffman's ideas:
try: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:47 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Stephen,
I am at a loss when I want to decipher meaning from machine-talk. My
excellent
On 24 January 2014 11:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/23/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote:
This appears to be the fundamental bone of contention between you and
Brent. He appears to believe arithmetic is a human invention which relates
to reality because, well, (waves hands, and
2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net:
Dear Alberto,
I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated
On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you?
I just had another look. It appears to be an infinite nest of boxes... I am
probably missing something but I can't see how this relates to,
Dear LizR,
The infinite nesting of boxes is one of the possible products of the
process that Kauffman is laboring to explain. It can be equally applied to
the construction of the natural numbers by starting with the null set and
adding layers of brackets, or by the von Neumann
On 24 January 2014 14:01, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The infinite nesting of boxes is one of the possible products of the
process that Kauffman is laboring to explain. It can be equally applied to
the construction of the natural numbers by starting with
Dear Bruno,
Among other interesting things, you wrote:
If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or if you
have played with a couple of universal system (machine or language), and
have even a rough idea how Gödel's theorem can be proved in arithmetic (=
by PA itself),
Dear LizR,
The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of, the
process. It makes sense that the product would be the opposite of the Flux,
they are not the same thing. One does not start with an infinite nesting,
one starts with the null set or, if we use the Laws of Form, it
On 1/23/2014 3:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 11:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/23/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote:
This appears to be the fundamental bone of contention between you and
Brent. He
appears to believe arithmetic is a human
On 24 January 2014 14:29, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I do not see how what is by definition fixed and timeless can be
considered to have any property that is an actual
actionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)
.
Following the supplied link gives this
On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of, the
process. It makes sense that the product would be the opposite of the Flux,
they are not the same thing. One does not start with an
On 24 January 2014 14:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say a finitist form of arithmetic is a good description of some
aspects of reality - but don't try to add raindrops or build Hilbert's
Hotel.
OK. So are there some fundamental aspects of reality that can't be
described by
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum mechanics:
positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite states; a block universe
must have all of its observables as mutually commuting so that they are all
simultaneously definite.
But let us ignore that and
Dear LizR,
I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_(
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of,
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum mechanics:
positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite states; a block universe
must have all of its observables as mutually commuting
On 24 January 2014 14:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_(
Then sadly it seems to be falling into Edgar-land. He can't grasp how
relativity makes his idea of p-time a non-starter, and you can't grasp
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum
mechanics: positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.
And PGC had a dig at me for giving a big fat TL;DR!
I'm glad other people have this problem.
--
On 1/23/2014 5:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I'd say a finitist form of arithmetic is a good description of some aspects
of
reality - but don't try to add raindrops or build Hilbert's Hotel.
OK. So are
On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as
On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.
And PGC had a dig at me for giving a big fat TL;DR!
I'm glad
On 24 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/23/2014 5:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say a finitist form of arithmetic is a good description of some
aspects of reality - but don't try to add raindrops or build
On 1/23/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/23/2014 5:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say a finitist
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 04:27:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.
And
On 24 January 2014 01:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can
differ
from
Oh well, I will remove my AR hat for now and put on my poet's hat. It's
much more becoming in any case.
On 24 January 2014 16:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/23/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/23/2014 5:46 PM,
There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic
the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and
me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational
On 23 Jan 2014, at 19:14, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Free Will is the inability to predict your own actions even in
a stable environment.
Yes, that's (almost) my definition.
It can't be unless you've recently changed your
88 matches
Mail list logo
