On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote:
What is your definition of mathematicalism here?
Strong definition: the big everything is a mathematical object.
(But perhaps this is asking too much. The whole of math is already not
a
Kory:
...It's not that I don't believe in life
In WHAT??? Some people believe in god, some in numbers, none can
reasonably identify the target of their belief. How about you?
*
... I just that I think that molecules, bits,
patterns, whatever, are the things that play the role ...
The listed
Hi Bruno,
I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on
the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond to.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote:
In the meantime, I at least want to say that
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 translation to be completely accurate commenting your, a
bit to prematurely
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
Hi Kory,
On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote:
I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on
the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond
to.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote:
Le 18-nov.-08, à 18:31, A. Wolf a écrit :
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
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.
Bruno,
Our hero first solves physics and then programs a physical simulator
to create a universe. You would argue that what he needed was to
execute a universal dovetailer and physics would appear as a
consequence (to the inhabitants of said universe(s)). Right?
Cheers,
Telmo Menezes.
On Tue,
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:23 AM
Subject: Little exercise
Hi,
A joke could hardly been wrong, yet, if taken seriously enough, a joke
could be made more correct! (and probably less funny, but that's
Telmo,
On 18 Nov 2008, at 12:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Our hero first solves physics and then programs a physical simulator
to create a universe. You would argue that what he needed was to
execute a universal dovetailer and physics would appear as a
consequence (to the inhabitants of said
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:23 AM
Subject: Little exercise
Hi,
A joke could hardly been wrong, yet, if taken seriously enough, a
joke
could be made more correct! (and probably less funny, but that's not
the point).
How would you make correct
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
