On 28/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With
Everett everything becomes clearer: nature does not collapse the wave,
and thus, does not provide any examples of a machine generating truly
random events. Randomness appears in the mind of the multiplied
observers, exactly like in the
On 27 Dec 2008, at 20:50, Günther Greindl wrote:
I agree with Bruno that all empirical evidence in this universe
suggest
that CT = PCT. But this need not be so, in a logical sense.
Indeed. UDA shows that PCT is a mysterious, if not *the* mystery with
CT. Logicaly, and a priori, CT
2008/12/26 Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com wrote:
And this assumption is quite close to comp in the sense that nobody
knows about
any natural machine not being turing emulable. Even quantum machine,
accepting QM without collapse.
That is true, but we have to be careful in our
Hi Günther,
On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:01, Günther Greindl wrote:
Bruno,
This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every
scientifically minded person.
Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted?
Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote
On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:10, Günther Greindl wrote:
Bruno,
But no weakening of comp based on nature is
known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM
cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion.
I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before on the
On 25 Dec 2008, at 22:27, Kim Jones wrote:
On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno,
I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system
that
Bruno,
In one sense those examples are things for which (finite) reasoning
fails, but I would still say that they are governed by (finite) rules
and possess a (finite) description-- the problem is merely that it
takes infinite amounts of time to derive the consequences of those
Bruno,
Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting...
unfortunately it is also very expensive.
--Abram
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno,
I agree with Gunther about the two types of
On 26 Dec 2008, at 20:24, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno,
In one sense those examples are things for which (finite) reasoning
fails, but I would still say that they are governed by (finite) rules
and possess a (finite) description--
Yes but we have to bet we share the standard interpretation
Abram,
Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting...
unfortunately it is also very expensive.
Then don't buy it. In my opinion, well to get the AUDA, the following
one are without doubt more genuine.
Actually I complained often that the Boolos 1979 book was out of stock
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno,
I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
is governed by rules and has a definite description.
Then Church thesis entails it is not broader,
Bruno,
This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every
scientifically minded person.
Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted?
Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote scientifically minded
- if you are in any way naturalist (and all the
Bruno,
But no weakening of comp based on nature is
known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM
cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion.
I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before on the
list that quantum-no cloning does not make a problem
On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno,
I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
is governed by rules and has a definite
Kim,
Right, that can't be done-- maybe such a system exists, but if so then
our rationality basically fails to apply to it. So as Gunther says,
the broader version of mechanism can be granted by every
scientifically minded person.
--Abram
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Kim Jones
On 24 Dec 2008, at 16:41, Günther Greindl wrote:
Kim, Bruno,
Not at all. You have already done the first and last leap of faith of
the reasoning when accepting the digital brain at the first step. I
am
aware that you are not aware of that, because in the reply you seem
to
believe
Bruno,
I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader
machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that
is governed by rules and has a definite description. Such machines are
of course not necessarily computable; oracle machines and so on can be
logically
17 matches
Mail list logo
