Just to make things clear--this spammer is not the same Anna. :P
Anna (of the non-spamming variety)
- Original Message -
From: Anna SCat glennafranc...@gmail.com
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:29 PM
Subject: Lets get
There, they call arithmetic soundness what me (and many logician) call
soundness, when they refer to theories about numbers. Like Mendelson I
prefer to use the term logically valid, to what you call soundness.
I may have misstated myself, but the wiki article you pointed me to agrees
with
Logicians from different fields use terms in different ways. In
provability logic and in recursion theory, soundness means often
arithmetical soundness.
I understand.
Part of the reason for my particular viewpoint: there's a group of
professors at the college I work at who are working on
As I said, you can formalize the notion of soundness in Set Theory. But
this adds nothing, except that it shows that the notion of soundness has
the same level of complexity that usual analytical or topological set
theoretical notions. So you can also say that unsound means violation
I wonder if anyone has tried work with a theory of finite numbers: where
BIGGEST+1=BIGGEST or BIGGEST+1=-BIGGEST as in some computers?
There is a group of faculty who address this problem directly in my
department. But any general-purpose computer can emulate true, unlimited
natural numbers
From what you said earlier, BIGGEST={0,1,...,BIGGEST-1}. Then
BIGGEST+1={0,1,...,BIGGEST-1} union {BIGGEST} = {0,1,...,BIGGEST}.
Why would {0,1,...BIGGEST} not be a natural number while
{0,1,...,BIGGEST-1} is?
If {0, 1, ... , BIGGEST-1} is a natural number, then {0,1,...,BIGGEST} is
too,
Thanks! This is like undoing historical events. If you forget about the
fact that dinosaurs ever lived on Earth and there is an alternative
history
that led to your existence in the multiverse, and you do the memory
erasure
also in sectors were dinosaurs never lived, you have some
what nonzero probability implies, you'd have a hard time showing that
anything non-contradictory at all has a nonzero probability of being true.
Er, I typed too quickly. I mean you'd have a hard time of showing that
anything non-contradictory has zero probability. Anything that isn't
So you are saying the mass of the universe is infinite.
I mean the number of particles is infinite (mass is a characteristic of some
particles). It is still possible it could be finite but unbounded, and just
extremely extremely large, but unless there's a logical reason it would
appear
I understand. I was trying ask about whether or not, if there were say
10^10^10 slits, would the electron go through all of them. Do we know for
sure?
You can perform the experiment with a thin grid instead of slits and get
similar patterns. But 10^10^10 in the traditional top-down way is a
Yes, but space may be simply the coordinate system in which matter and
energy move. Even if the coordinate system is infinite, it doesn't matter
because the particles' occupy a finite (but growing) part of it.
I don't think your conceptualization of an expanding universe is correct.
No
So, do you have one? :)
Will attempt to respond tomorrow--I have a whole bunch of emails flagged for
this group that I meant to respond to earlier.
This list is much busier than I would have ever suspected, but I'm not
complaining. :)
Anna
What is time?
About 7pm EDT, here.
(Sorry...haven't had the time to read my flagged posts yet and offer real
responses.)
Anna
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to
..*some subjective experience of personhood or* being *that we all
share*,
and each of us presumably experiences *something* like that.
I emphasize the 'something': who knows if we experience (share?) the same
feeling? The words we use to describe it are not more relevant than
describing
One of the reasons I rarely post to this list is that many people here
seem trapped in an eternal series of meaningless essentialistic
debates. Nothing objective or conclusive ever comes from
essentialistic arguments where people bicker over what some word or
concept really means.
Science used
preference would be to avoid words and numbers and do it
via music. But, I guess that's back to numbers.
cheers,
Kim
On 14/12/2008, at 1:30 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
One of the reasons I rarely post to this list is that many people here
seem trapped in an eternal series of meaningless essentialistic
Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can
describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and all
the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to
address an 'eternal' if not somewhat static reality that might even be
taken as
I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of chaos
- something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt
the stance of always launching your prediction from a single present -
the one you happen to find yourself in.
I think you mean randomness, not chaos.
We have to go from consciousness at (dx,dt)
Since when can consciousness be an instantaneous event?
Anna
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
Since when can consciousness be an instantaneous event?
Oops! replace with (Dx,Dt). I have no deltas.
Yeah, but still. I don't think consciousness can be freeze-framed
mathematically like this. I haven't been reading the conversation,
though...I should probably try to catch up.
Anna
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks fo your clarification Anna. We will have the opportunity to
come back on some nuances later. I basically agree with your solution,
but I would have to explain the entire MGA + a part of its
arithmetical
Well if you take any finite portion of the universe then you have a
finite amount of matter, this finite amount of matter has a finite set
of possible permutations hence for a given block of universes of the
same size there is only a finite set of possible arrangement of the
matter in those.
Even if you could discretize the universe to a countable submodel (and I'm
not certain you can), each step of the computation would take forever (each
step is ordered by omega the way the stones are laid out). An infinite
amount of time bounded by discrete steps isn't enough time to complete
i am not sure I understand. Are you thinking that the hero is in its
own simulation?
No. The tape isn't a standard Turing tape because it's infinitely long. :)
That's why someone can't perform the calculation stepwise in the way that it
is described, even given infinite time.
Anna
I am realizing that I don't have time to get into this. I assume that
your use of the word model is equivalent to theory.
Er, no. I mean a foundational mathematical model which includes at
least one set representative of the multiverse, or at the very least a
countable transitive submodel
Capable of supporting implies some physical laws that connect an
environment and sapient beings. In an arbitrary list universe, the
occurrence of sapience might be just another arbitrary entry in the list
(like Boltzman brains). And what about the rules of inference? Do we
This is true.
I'm well aware of relativity. But I don't see how you can invoke it when
discussing all possible, i.e. non-contradictory, universes. Neither do I see
that list of states universes would be a teeny subset of all mathematically
consistent universes. On the contrary, it would be very large.
So long as it is not self-contradictory I can make it an axiom of a
mathematical
basis. It may not be very interesting mathematics to postulate:
Axiom 1: There is a purple cow momentarily appearing to Anna and then
vanishing.
I fear this is not an axiom of a mathematical basis. :)
The
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To infer means there is a process which permits to infer.. if there
is none... then you can't simply infer something.
The process itself arises naturally from the universe of sets
guaranteed by the axioms of set theory.
What is your objection to the existence of list-universes? Are they not
internally consistent mathematical structures? Are you claiming that
whatever
the list is, rules of inference can be derived (using what process?) and
thence
they will be found to be inconsistent?
You're rally
Well by your definition a universe is consistent (the inconsistent ones don't
exist). So given a universe we could look at it as a list of states if it
could
be foliated by some parameter (which we might identify as time).
The inconsistent ones don't exist, but an abstract description of
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anna's explanation was from the frequentist side.
Gunther's was from the Bayesian side.
I actually agree with the Bayesian point of view, but I was trying to
avoid injecting expectation into a description of how infinite
But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING?
I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not
self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to
suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal sense: a lack
of mathematical contradiction. All things that
(By the way, the personal God is the only one in whom a
person can possibly believe, but that could be another topic.)
Absolutist statements make proof by contradiction easy. :)
Anna
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically
consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point
of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is
personal (i.e.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this topic. I will think about it a little first.
By the way, is your use of blue and red a metaphor for Obama and
McCain? ;)
Wow. :)
Subconciously, perhaps in part. But it's mainly because the last pair
of
If you don't require some mathematical model of evolution of states
determining what happens in a Markovian way (like a Schroedinger eqn for
example) then one consistent mathematical model is just a list:... Anna
wore a red sweater on 6 Nov 2008, Anna wore a blue sweater on 7 Nov
2008, Anna
Does model imply a theory which predicts the evolution of states
(possibly probabilistic) so that the state of universe yesterday limits
what might exist today?
No. Model means a mathematical object. One specific, unchanging,
crystalline object you can hold in your hand and look at from a
But not a logical contradiction. It would just contradict our assumed
model of physics, i.e. a nomological contradiction.
I realize I can't give a concrete example from physics due to the lack of
total human understanding, so it is difficult to get across the exact point.
If we presume that
So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)...
would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value.
Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting
the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for sapience?
Anna
language? In the latter probably just means likely to happen but
if EVERYTHING happens then how can the concept make sense? I guess it
must be two different concepts, then?
No, not necessarily.
There are two ways that probability can play a real role in MW.
This is no different from how it
Hi everyone, I am a complete layman but still got the illusion that
maybe one day I would be able to understand the probability part of MW
if explained in a simple way. I know it's the most controversal part
of MW and that there are several competing understandings of
probability in MW, but
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on this list
and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
I was going to intro myself eventually but because this is interesting
to me, I wanted to
Yes, but don't forget in saying this you have recognised that this is
also our chief weapon against each other.
Is it not rather ironic that we can call 'sociopath' someone who
cannot 'fake it' emotionally to get his own way?
Ironically, most sociopaths are actually excellent at faking
44 matches
Mail list logo
