Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 6:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology.

Re: What day is it?

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:21, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > On

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 6:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 6:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Computationalism has an ontology on which everyone agree. Those who claim to disagree usually add philosophical commitment which is not used in the reasoning. An ontology *is* a philosophical

Re: What day is it?

On 15/10/2015 6:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology. That belongs to the field of philosophy of science,

Re: What day is it?

On 14 Oct 2015, at 22:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/14/2015 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Oct 2015, at 06:59, Brent Meeker wrote: Yes. A brain in a vat with no connections would not be able to sustain consciousness. Aaaahh... OK, but then you assume indeed, like Bruce Kellet

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 03:59, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Oct 2015, at 05:50, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/13/2015 7:22 PM, Jason Resch

Re: What day is it?

On 15 Oct 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/10/2015 2:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: You talk like if I have claim knowing some truth. I do not. You are doing philosophy of comp-theology. That belongs to the field of philosophy of science, which is not my expertise. You cannot use

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at

Re: What day is it?

On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Two different meanings of the word 'exist'. Physical existence relates to physical objects; mathematical 'existence' relates to

Re: What day is it?

On 16/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Two different meanings of the word 'exist'.

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> There is no evidence physical objects change. >> > > ​Be honest now, do you really believe that remark deserves a response?​ >

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 15/10/2015 12:07 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 14/10/2015 4:45 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Cochlear implants and

Re: What day is it?

On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: What evidence do you need to say that something does not exist? Absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

Re: What day is it?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> What evidence do you need to say that something does not exist? Absence

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 6:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 10/15/2015 2:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​ > you have no knowledge of computer science and its history. Computation > and computability have been discovered by mathematicians and they don't use > any physical assumptions. > ​That is true, ​ physical assumptions

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal, >> >> > ​>> ​ >> ​But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing!​ >> ​ ​ >> No proof can.​ > > ​> ​ > That is false. Sigma_1 provability can compute

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If arithmetic is false, Church-Turing thesis makes no more sense. ?? It will make sense as an axiom in a certain branch of mathematics. Then it is no more the classical Church's thesis. It will be something like intuitionist Church's thesis.

Re: What day is it?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > There is no evidence physical objects change. > ​Be honest now, do you really believe that remark deserves a response?​ ​> ​ > Most of reality we cannot observe. I'm comfortable with there being many > things

Re: What day is it?

On 10/15/2015 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Not at all, I only assume a brain needs an external world to be aware of. Either what you add to the brain is Turing emulable, and that means you are just lmowering the substittution level, and the reasoning I presented still follows (as he used