Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Now, just recall that "Platonia" is based on classical logic where
>>> the
>>> falsity f, or 0 = 1, entails all proposition. So if you insist to say
>>> that 0 = 1, I will soon prove that you owe to me A billions of
>>> dollars, and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2011, at 13:13, benjayk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/19/2011 3:39 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2011, at 00:39, benjayk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe
>>>> in mathematics exists "in platonia"
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>
> On 2/19/2011 3:39 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe
>>>> in mathematics exists "in platonia"?
>>&g
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe
>> in mathematics exists "in platonia"?
>
> The problem is that we can describe much more things than the one we
> are able to show consistent, so if you allow what we could describe
> you take too much. If
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What do you mean by Platonia?
>
> The kind of Platonia in Tegmark or in Peter's (1Z) post does not make
> sense for mathematicians. Even if you are using a theory like Quine's
> NF, which allows mathematical universes, you still have no
> mathematical des
1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>>
>> > On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>> >> Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>>
1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> >> 1Z wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> >> >> 1Z wrote:
>>
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>
> On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>> Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1Z wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
1Z wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> >> 1Z wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at
>> all
>
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>
> On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>> 1Z wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1Z wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>&
1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
>> >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to
>>
1Z wrote:
>
>> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
>> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be
>> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible
>> >> epiphenomena.
>>
>> > Physics cannot be eliminated in f
I would say the concept of OM moments is, if taken as more then as a fuzzy
pointer to some "now", is an oversimplification (or an overcomplexification,
depends on your viewpoint), so there is no absolute meaning to ASSA/RSSA.
Maybe there is only one observer moment ("eternal life of god", "I AM")
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 Dec 2009, at 17:07, benjayk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are. Numbers are primitive. The variable x and y represents
>>> excusively those numbers. Finite
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The theory
> explains what exists, and how the rest emerges from it.
But then doesn't the "rest" exist, too? I just see a problem with
claiming
to explain what exi
I willl not reply to all parts of your post in detail, because I think we
mainly discuss semantics on some specific issues. I feel we agree on most
things either way, it seems pointless to get
>
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> It's like a
>>> theory saying: "There is something, but don't ak
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you
>> already
>> presume the appearance of matter,
>
> I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume "consensual reality".
> If not, I would not post message on a list.
Well, that was my point. So i
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:
>
>> For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
>> matter,
>> too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
>> reffering to som
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>
> benjayk wrote:
>> Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>>>> Where could the explanation begin?
>>>>
>>> I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
>>> said...it's descriptions all
Rex Allen wrote:
>
>> Where could the explanation begin?
>
> I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
> said...it's descriptions all the way down.
I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or formal
explanation. In a sense our life and our experie
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> And what do you mean by "stay there"? Forever? Why should you stay
>> there
>> (can you choose)? And where is there? Is it forgetfulness oder
>> remembrance?
>
> It is very difficult to describe any first person experience. We
> cannot even describe normal sta
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> It is actually an art to find the dosage and the timing so that you
> understand better some, well, let us say statements you get there. One
> is just impossible to memorize, or you stay there, and a copy is send
> here. This is a copy effect experimented by a reas
soulcatcher-2 wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> every time I read about the anthropic reasoning in physics I can't
> help asking the more general question:
> "Why I am I, not somebody else?"
> Why I see through _this_ eyes, am confined to _this_ brain, was born
> in _this_ year, etc?
> This question seems to
201 - 224 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
