Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

On 9/18/2018 1:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:04:25 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:52 AM Brent Meeker > wrote: />Is that even relevant.  Brains are presumably psuedo-classical objects.  But they can't be strictly

Re: The codical-material universe

On 9/18/2018 9:17 AM, John Clark wrote: /It was Washington for he Helsinki guy reconstitute in Washington, and he admit he could not have predict this in Helsinki.The same for the Moscow guy./ Well maybe that's true, maybe the Helsinki man was unable to predict that, but then

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

On 9/18/2018 4:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Sep 2018, at 06:52, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 9/17/2018 10:21 AM, John Clark wrote: />It can be duplicated, but it cannot feel the split. / If a brain can't feel the split when its duplicated, and I agree

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

On 9/18/2018 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think you know what you mean by "exist", I certainly don’t. I use “exists” as a quantifier in some theory. The axioms are given in all textbook of logic. But you need to connect that meaning to the very different meaning of exists =

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:04:25 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:52 AM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > * >Is that even relevant. Brains are presumably psuedo-classical >> objects. But they can't be strictly classical, so it seems likely that it >> is

Re: The codical-material universe

Hi all—I've been lurking for awhile and this isn't my primary field, but I work in digital humanities and literary studies, and I've been working on conceptualizing the connections between coding, mathematics/philosophy/logic, and literature. I'm not convinced one way or the other yet about

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:52 AM Brent Meeker wrote: * >Is that even relevant. Brains are presumably psuedo-classical objects. > But they can't be strictly classical, so it seems likely that it is > impossible to exactly duplicate a brain. * > Brains can't be duplicated exactly nor can any

Re: The codical-material universe

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:00 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>Changes in what? You say electrons, atoms, photons, neutrinos, >> gravitational waves, time, space and even spacetime are all matter, so the >> change can't be with respect to any of them; so what's changing and with >> respect to what? > >

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

> On 18 Sep 2018, at 06:52, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 9/17/2018 10:21 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >It can be duplicated, but it cannot feel the split. >> >> If a brain can't feel the split when its duplicated, and I agree it can't, >> then EVERYTHING (my capitalization) was so

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

> On 17 Sep 2018, at 19:21, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>that says you should look for the simplest explanation and that is not > >>induction. Induction is not about explanations. Every animal with a nervous >

Re: The codical-material universe

> On 18 Sep 2018, at 02:17, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 9/17/2018 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 16 Sep 2018, at 22:31, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/16/2018 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. I can explain why you will need a non computationalist theory