From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
Dear Stephen,
On 10 Mar 2011, at 16:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 AM
From: Brent Meeker
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:39 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
On 3/10/2011 7:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Andrew Soltau
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To:
everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
was Another TOE short paper
On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Could you explain this a bit more?
“The ideally correct machine
is to the human what a material point is to the sun. My answer tries
only to help you to understand what I mean by a knowing machine, not
really a knowing human. Human have non-monotonic layers, they can
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:19 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Vic Stenger on information models
On 21 Feb 2011, at 19:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
This, from my friend Vic Stenger, might be of interest to you Bruno.
Original Message
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 4:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Vic Stenger on information models
There is something a bit different about information than the other
conceptions of reality. We must, by definition,
Dear Bruno,
Please set this aside as a stand alone synopsis of your idea. It is a
brilliant explanation that I cannot argue against. I would only append to it
additional considerations that must be taken into account if we are going to
consider how many minds (or many bodies) can be
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:04 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Probably I should just say that
the
transformations in the class all of those experiences that contain or carry
some information about what it is like for Stephen Paul King to be having
some or another experience including those experiences of having a email
discussion with something that would be equivalent to the invariant
Hi All,
Question: Why must Platonia exist?
Onward!
Stephen
“It is amazing what can be accomplished when nobody cares about who gets the
credit.”
Robert Yates
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
From: Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 1:13 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
From: Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief in Platonia
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If you agree
with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is enough for the comp
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Plato's Heaven
On 14 Feb 2011, at 09:40, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
{SPK]
Allow me to add a comment to this brilliant argument. Following Jason’s
description
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Multisolipsism
Hi Stephen,
On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:33, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno and Brent,
-Original Message- From: Bruno
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:48 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Multisolipsism
On 13 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I am very interested in this question as it directly relates to my
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
The only ontology is my conciousness, and some amount of consensual
Hi Bruno and Brent,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Multisolipsism
On 09 Feb 2011, at 20:51, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/9/2011 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
How is my first person
Hi Ronald,
-Original Message-
From: ronaldheld
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:15 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Physical Church-Turing thesis and QM
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1612v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
***
A very cool
for that, there's plenty of randomness in the environment.
Brent
On 1/31/2011 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi David,
You just happened to mention the 800kg Gorilla in the room! While
we can rattle off a sophisticated narrative about decoherence effects
and quote from some Tegmark paper
on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
here and not hidden variable theories
and Consciousness”
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy” here and not
hidden variable theories, the fact that it has been experimentally
verified that Nature violates the principle
paper “Computation and Consciousness”
Dear Stephen,
On 28 Jan 2011, at 01:13, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Interleaving.
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper
Dear Bruno,
Interleaving.
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
SPK: The supervenience thesis
Hi Travis,
Thank you for joining us. Please prepare to defend your paper.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Travis Garrett
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: JOINING: Travis Garrett
Hi everybody,
My name is Travis - I'm
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, they merely exist, if at
all! We can use verbs to describe relations between nouns but that does not
change the fact that nouns are nouns and not verbs. The movie
:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, they merely exist, if
at all! We can use verbs to describe relations between nouns but that does not
change the fact that nouns are nouns and not verbs. The movie graph is a neat
Hi Travis,
I have really enjoyed the challenge of your paper. One difficulty that I
have with it is that the selection of a gauge is a highly non-trivial
problem (related to the fine tuning problem!) and thus needs a lot more
attention. More comments soon.
Onward!
Stephen
Dear Bruno and Friends,
I was re-reading the Mauldin paper again and something struck me that I had
not noticed before. I hope that I am not way over my head on this one, but I
think that there is something of a straw man in Mauldin’s definition of the
supervenience thesis! He assumes the
, and the UDA (+MGA) goes
trough. That applies to Maudlin's argument as well.
Bruno
On 25 Jan 2011, at 10:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
I was re-reading the Mauldin paper again and something struck me that I
had not noticed before. I hope that I am not way over my
physical computer.
If it did depend on it, I could'nt write programs in the first place without
knowing on what it will run.
1+1=2 even if you use rocks to do it and even for big value of 1...
Regards,
Quentin
2011/1/25 Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
Dear Bruno,
As far as I
a son gout.
Thanks for reflecting to my post and best wishes to all
John
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi John!
No outside view That is the point that I was trying to make from
the start. This is why I keep repeating
Dear Bruno,
Thank you for you kind and thoughtful comments. Interleaving...
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:05 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A paper by Bas C. van Fraassen
Hello Stephen,
On 21 Jan 2011, at 23:15, Stephen Paul King wrote
Hi John!
No outside view That is the point that I was trying to make from the
start. This is why I keep repeating that Numerical Idealism is an insufficient
theory of everything; there cannot be an outside that acts to distinguish
numbers from each other! An interesting discussion of
,
Bruno
Bruno Marchal wrote:
HI Stephen,
Just a short reply to your post to Colin, and indirectly to your last posts.
On 22 Oct 2010, at 10:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Colin,
Let me put you are ease, van Fraassen has sympathies with the
frustrations
Dear Bruno and Evgenii,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: comp and Maxwell demon
You can simulate it. But you cannot program it. It uses a huge amount
of information that it is hard to
facsimile of the idea that I have been
exploring and exploring for about 10 years now, even down to the use of the
symbol ~ for the equivalence relation. I am in the process of writing up a
detailed commentary on it but could not help but to put out this post asap.
Kindest regards,
Stephen Paul King
Hi 1Z,
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Compatibilism
On Nov 28, 11:36 pm, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Hi Rex and Bruno,
I think that you are both missing an important point by taking
Hi,
The word planned would seem to signify that there exists a mechanism
(used the the most generic way) that selects that the object of the plan was
chosen from a collection of possible alternatives with a bias that is not
necessarily on that is natural and thus implies the existence of
Hi Rex and Bruno,
I think that you are both missing an important point by taking an from
infinity view. The fact that the world is not given to us in terms where
these is one and only one option given some condition forces us to deal with
alternatives. We can go on and on about causation
Dear Friends,
Within the context of my membership of the Autopoiesis-Dialogue list I
received the following posts. I would like to cross post it here in order
that the discussion that Joel Issacson and Hugo Urrestazu are having can be
considered by the Members as I believe that it is very
Dear Rex,
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Probability, Necessity, and Infinity
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM
' is and the difference between it
and 'BEING', 'MEASUREMENT and 'EVIDENCE' and _then_ what you can do with
evidence.
There. Vent is complete. That's better. Phew!
:-)
Colin Hales.
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for many
ideas
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for many ideas
that have gone into my posts so far, in particular the argument against the
idea of a “view from nowhere”.
www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/Rovelli_sWorld-FIN.pdf
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received
Hi Folks,
The following is from the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy .
In their 1999 paper,[1] Gilles Brassard, Richard Cleve and Alain Tapp
demonstrated that winning quantum strategies can exist in simple games for
which in the absence of quantum
Hi Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A paper for your Comments
On 11 Oct 2010, at 00:54, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Fixing a missing part of my post
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent
Hi Bruno,
Interleaving...
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 11:16 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A paper for your Comments
Hi Stephen,
The discussion has evolved enough now from my original topic as to
require that I restate
Fixing a missing part of my post
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 2:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A paper for your Comments
Hi Bruno,
Interleaving...
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 11:16 AM
Dear Bruno,
The discussion has evolved enough now from my original topic as to require
that I restate my thesis and add some new ideas in a new post with a new
subject line, given some new understanding of your ideas. I greatly appreciate
your patience and comments as I have learned a
Hi Jack,
- Original Message -
From: Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Jack Mallah's paper on QS.
-- On Mon, 1/25/10, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Does not the mutual
Hi Jacques,
AS I re-read your paper, I had a thought: Does not the mutual
interfearence between the copies hace something to do with a QM systems
ability to compute exponensially more than a classical system? If so, then
reducing the number or density of copies would lead to an attenuation
Dear Mark,
I have questions to pose to you.
1) What is the cardinality of this infinite collection/set/class/whatever of
machines?
2) What measure is it that might be used to partition the set or class of
machines such that at least one subset of them can be identified as
corresponding
Hi Folks,
I would like to append a question that we all seem to circle around: Why
do we even need to have a physical existance at all? Why isn't Platonic
existence sufficient?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk
To: Everything List
Dear Ronald,
The theory is pure unadulterated Idealism. Matter/energy are, at best,
considered as epiphenomena. My efferts to discuss alternatives have lead
nowhere...
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
To: Everything List
Hi Ronald,
Thank you for this reference and querry for comments. I recall that this
idea, of a crystalizing space-time, appears in The Maker of Dune, a collection
of letters, short stories and essays by Frank Herbert - the Science Fiction
writer famous for his Dune series. The following
Hi Colin,
It seems that to me that until one understands the nature of the extreme
Idealism that COMP entails, no arguement based on the physical will do...
I refute it thus!
-Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
Hi Bruno,
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: 3-PoV from 1 PoV?
Hi Stephen,
On 13 May 2009, at 22:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
By relagating
,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: 3-PoV from 1 PoV?
Hi Stephen,
On 12 May 2009, at 19:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Falsifiable bets. ;)
Not all. You bet the number
Hi Bruno,
Interleaving some comments.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com ; Stephen Paul King
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: 3-PoV from 1 PoV?
On 08 May 2009, at 17:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I
Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness is information?
On 05 May 2009, at 20:13, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno and Members,
The comment that is made below seems to only involve a single
Hi Bruno and Members,
The comment that is made below seems to only involve a single consciousness
and an exterior reality. Could we not recover a very similar situation if we
consider the 1-PoV and 3-PoV relation to hold to some degree over a multitude
of consciouness (plurality). In the
Hi Brent,
But does not MWI imply that if we could somehow erase all (retrivable!)
records of a measurement, that we would - in effect - be culling that
branch from the Tree?
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ronald,
Thank you for recommending this paper. While I recognize many of the
ideas in it, it bothers me that there is no explicit attempt to explain the
beliefs (other that vague references to other papers/books). As I
understand the paper, Mikovi´c is propossing a type of
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A
Brief Introduction]
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
If the copy has no
Dear Jonathan, Brent and Stathis,
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: Copying?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But the brain changes from moment to moment due to
]
Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
Hi Brent and Quentin,
Could it be that it is the continuous possibility of recall from
memory
itself and not just the occasional recall acts that are important to
continuity of P.I.?
Stephen
Sure. But what provides that possibility - the causal (physical
Hi Stathis,
A question : Is is incorrect of me to infer that the psychological
criterion of personal identity discussed in Shoemaker's book and, by your
statement below, used by a predominance of members of this list is one that
treats conscious self-awareness as an epiphenomena arrising
Hi Ronald,
Some people, myself included, would be a lot more comfortable with the
whole inflation idea if a) there where some experimental evidence of the
scalar fields that are required and b) some sound explanation where given as
to how an in principle unknowable phenomenon - the BB
Hi Günther,
Nice post! Coments soon.
Speaking of Svozil's work, please see: Cristian S. Calude, Peter H.
Hertling and Karl Svozil, ``Embedding Quantum Universes in Classical Ones'',
Foundations of Physics 29(3), 349-390 (1999) [abstract], [CrossRef
DOI:10.1023/A:1018862730956],
Hi Bruno and Friends,
I have some comments and questions interleaved below.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Time
Hi Abram,
I agree mostly with Brent's reply. Other
Hi Hal and fellow Members,
I hae been following Hal's work for quite some time. Some comments...
- Original Message -
From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Properties of observers
On Feb
Hi Russell,
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Overcoming Incompleteness
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:53:59PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
For me the question has always been how
Dear Russell,
Isn't the key feature of a self-aware system the ability to generate
some form of representation of itself within itself? Would it not be a
simple matter of a system being able to generate some form of simulation of
itself such that there is both a similarity and a
Dear Jesse,
Hasn't Stephen Wolfram proven that it is impossible to shortcut
predictions for arbitrary behaviours of sufficienty complex systems?
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL
Hi Bruno,
I read all of your posts with interest and after reading your responce
to Hal's latest post, where you make a statement about your theory, I again
have a question: How do you account for the multiplicity of minds (each
having a different PoV of the physical world) such that your
Hi Russel,
Are you assuming non-well founded sets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 3:12 AM
Subject: Re:
Dear Stathis,
Is this not an extreme form of Occasionalism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism
Why does it seem that we humans perpetually imagine the possibility that
the Universe we observe requires some form of hidden behind the curtains
machinery to hold it up; I am
Hi Folks,
I have been reading Bruno's wonderful Elsavier paper and have been
wondering about this notion of a Uncertainty measure. Does not the
existence of such a measure demand the existence of a breaking of the
perfect symmetry that is obvious in a situation when all possible outcomes
Hi George,
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
I would like to point out that you may have
Hi George,
- Original Message -
From:
George Levy
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:22
AM
Subject: Re: Symmetry, Invarance and
Conservation
Hi StephenStephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Hi Peter,
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:47 PM
Subject: Existence, individuation, instantiation
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Quentin et al,
I keep reading this claim
Hi Peter,
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
1Z wrote:
Remember that comp relies on arithmetical platonism.
Your version does.
Dear George,
Could it be that Consciousness is more
related and identifiable with the "processing" of Information than with
Information itself? Consider the example often raised (I do not know the
original source) of a Book that contained a "complete description" of Einstein's
Brain. It
Hi Lee,
I am reminded of the old saw from the Westerns: This town is too small
for the both of us!
;-)
Could it be that consciousness is statistically Fermionic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi-Dirac_statistics
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL
Dear Lee and Bruno,
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:45 AM
Subject: RE: A calculus of personal identity
Bruno writes
Actually I was about to say that nominal question are suggestive
Hi Lee,
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:02 AM
Subject: RE: Only Existence is necessary?
Stephen writes
it seems that we have skipped
past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does
Hi Tom,
I completely agree with you on this and could only add that it seems
almost impossible for us to comprehend the seemingly subconscious bias that
we bring into discussions of the nature of Meaning and Existence. It is as
if it is impossible to remove all vestiges of the existence
Dear Bruno,
I would like to cut to a couple parts of your reply.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
snip
[SPK]
Pratt does not seek to
Dear Bruno,
Thank you for this wonderful post! Interleaving...
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Dear Stephen,
We can go
Hi Lee,
I have no qualms with your point here, but it seems that we have skipped
past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does distinguishability
and individuation follow from the mere existence of Platonic Forms, if
process is merely a relation between Forms (as Bruno et al
Hi Stathis,
The paper is found
here:
http://consc.net/papers/rock.html
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:55
PM
Subject: RE: Re: Only Existence is
necessary?
Stephen,I
Hi Bruno,
Ok, but my question is: How is the set of relations between the
computations embedded/encoded in Platonia such that a comparison *between*
them is possible? We seem to be tacitly reintroducing a distinguisher that
is somehow *outside* of Platonia... This is a familiar notion
Hi Tom,
I think that you are bring up a good point but I must ask about the
nature of invariance! The notion of invariance involves a subject to which
the invariance obtains. If there is no such an subject, what meaning does
the notion of a invariance have?
Hi Hal,
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Now, if any
computation is implemented by
Dear Quentin et al,
I keep reading this claim that only the existence of the algorithm
itself is necessary and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for
mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation
in terms of some Platonic Number, is sufficient to
Hi Tom,
Your post has inspired a thought for me
that I have been struggling for years to generate! Where is Intensionality
instantiated in Arithmetic Realism, or any form of Platonism? To re-phrase in
folk-speak: How is "to whom-ness" present in a number?
I find in
Hi Norman,
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:14 AM
Subject: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I heard that Famous Question, I did
Dear Bruno,
Kim Jones' post prompts me to ask whether or not a
self-referentially-correct Loebian machine involves an infinite regress
or a non-well founded structure. Given that it is typical to include the
idea of a non-prescripted interview, where the questions can have follow ups
et.com/why?AngelsOnTheHeadsOfPins
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Stephen Paul King ; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:20
PM
Subject: Re: Multiverse concepts in
string theory
Stephen,
Theorists
Dear Wei and Friends,
I have been
following this thread with some interest (Hal initial post was wonderful,
BTW!)and echo the comments of Wei here, but I would offer a note of
caution: we must be very careful that the elevation of string theory (SUSY) to
almost dogmatic "Sacred Cow"
601 - 700 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
