John,
On 26 May 2013, at 00:54, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and others:
did you read
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/do_the_math/2013/05/yitang_zhang_twin_primes_conjecture_a_huge_discovery_about_prime_numbers.single.html
the information about prof. Zhang's discovery (U of New
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23595-weinsteins-theory-of-everything-is-probably-nothing.html
Brent
On 5/25/2013 3:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and others:
did you read
On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:57, Roger Clough wrote:
Here's an additional observation-- Only the prime numbers can be
monads,
because all other integers can not be subdivided and still remain
integers.
Hmm... numbers are monad when seen as index of a partial computable
function
...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 05:09:15
Subject: Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can
bemonads. Cool
], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 05:09:15
Subject: Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers
can bemonads
Here's an additional observation-- Only the prime numbers can be monads,
because all other integers can not be subdivided and still remain integers.
Cool.
- Have received the following content -
Sender: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-07, 08:33:37
Subject
On 27 Sep 2012, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/27/2012 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Sep 2012, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
snip
So you mean if some mathematical
On 26 Sep 2012, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
So you mean if some mathematical object implies a contradiction it
doesn't exist, e.g. the largest prime number. But then of
On 9/27/2012 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Sep 2012, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
snip
So you mean if some mathematical object implies a contradiction it doesn't exist,
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/26/2012 2:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 2:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-24, 10:42:12
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
On 9/24/2012 9:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
God's ideas is fine. The numbers and arithmetic etc. can inhere in
some
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, I think that the structures and
attributes of matter are provided
by a creator (the All, the supreme
monad, or God). Plato used the analogy
of geometrical shapes for his structures.
But if
On 9/25/2012 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, I think that the structures and
attributes of matter are provided
by a creator (the All, the supreme
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/25/2012 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, I think that the structures and
attributes of matter are provided
by
On 9/25/2012 7:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that their existence is self-contradictory
Propositions can be self contradictory, but how can existence of something be
self-contradictory?
Brent
then we should consider them as possible. Just because I cannot experience
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that their existence is self-contradictory
Propositions can be self contradictory, but how can existence of
something be self-contradictory?
Brent
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that their existence is self-contradictory
Propositions can be self contradictory, but how can existence of
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that their existence is self-contradictory
content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-23, 03:42:03
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
On 22 Sep 2012, at 22:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5
are always real (in the philosophical sense).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-23, 03:42:03
Subject: Re: Prime
.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-22, 16:10:38
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Numbers are not in spacetime, that is, are not at location r at time
t.
So they are ideas,
God's ideas? Then I am OK. The comp God is arithmetical truth, so this
works.
they are not physical.
OK.
To be physical
Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-24, 09:12:29
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:39, Roger Clough wrote
On 9/24/2012 9:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
God's ideas is fine. The numbers and arithmetic etc. can inhere in
some mind. The numbers are (idealistically) real, as I think
all arithmetic must be. For it is true whether known or
not. At least as you stay with common numbers and arithmetic.
Pretty
On 22 Sep 2012, at 22:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5 because it's saturday.
How could we have a world we many minds can, on rare occasions, come
to complete agreement if that
On 9/23/2012 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Sep 2012, at 22:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5 because it's saturday.
How could we have a world we many minds can, on rare
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-21, 09:20:41
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
Just to avoid confusion, this sentence:
I would say that mathematics is just very tightly plotted fiction where so many
details of the story are known up front that the plot can only progress in very
specific
or vice versa.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/22/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Terren Suydam
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-21, 12:29:56
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:40
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-21, 13:30:03
Subject: Re: Prime Numbers
On 9/21/2012 5:40 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Rex Allen
On 21 Sep 2012, at 19:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5 because it's saturday.
How could we have a world we many minds can, on rare occasions, come to
complete agreement if that where the case? Perhaps it is true that 2+2=4
On 20 Sep 2012, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the
probability one. In Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist
On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm curious about what a plausible fictionalist account of the
Mandelbrot set could be. Is fictionalism the same as constructivism,
or the
On 9/21/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the probability
On 9/21/2012 5:40 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
mailto:rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012
On 9/21/2012 8:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
mailto:rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Rex Allen
Just to avoid confusion, this sentence:
*I would say that mathematics is just very tightly plotted fiction where so
many details of the story are known up front that the plot can only
progress in very specific ways if it is to remain consistent and believable
to the reader.*
Should probably be:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 8:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM,
On 9/21/2012 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 8:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
mailto:rexallen31...@gmail.com
On 19 Sep 2012, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/19/2012 2:39 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Your remarks raise an interesting question: Could it be that
both the object and the means to generate (or perceive) it are of
equal importance ontologically?
Yes. It comes from
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the probability one. In
Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means that x is realized in all worlds accessible
from alpha, and (key point) that we are not in a cul-de-sac world.
What does
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the
probability one. In Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means
that x is realized in all worlds accessible from alpha, and (key
point) that
On 18 Sep 2012, at 18:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Yes. This was known by people like Fatou and Julia, in the early
1900.
I knew they
On 9/19/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2012, at 18:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Yes. This was known by people like Fatou and Julia,
On 19 Sep 2012, at 17:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/19/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2012, at 18:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
On 9/19/2012 2:39 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Your remarks raise an interesting question: Could it be that both
the object and the means to generate (or perceive) it are of equal
importance ontologically?
Yes. It comes from the embedding of the subject in the objects, that
any
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Yes. This was known by people like Fatou and Julia, in the early 1900.
Iterating analytical complex functions leads to the Mandelbrot fractal
sets, or similar.
The computer has
On 9/18/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Yes. This was known by people like Fatou and Julia, in the early 1900.
I knew they considered what are now called fractal sets, but not
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein?
I find fictionalism to be the most plausible view of mathematics, with all
that implies for
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein?
I find
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein?
I find
On 9/18/2012 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The unreasonable effectiveness of math in the physical sciences is yet further support
if Platonism.
I don't see that this follows. If we invent language, including mathematics, to describe
our theories of the world that explains their effectiveness.
perceptions of the
world find anything that is close to a PHI valued relationship to be
beautiful?
Thanks Stephen!
Actually my initial example of numeracy isn't quite right, but it's not
important to the rest of the argument.
My main point is that you can get to the concept of prime numbers
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think an easier way to intuit prime numbers that can't be represented as
rectangles, only a 1-wide lines.
While the concept of primes is straight forward, there is an unending set
of not-so-obvious facts that we
, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think an easier way to intuit prime numbers that can't be represented as
rectangles, only a 1-wide lines.
While the concept of primes is straight forward, there is an unending set
of not-so-obvious facts that we continue to discover about the Primes
On 9/17/2012 10:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein? How can you make
sense of that in terms of the constructivist point of view
How can you make sense of it otherwise. The
I would say computers were the tool that allowed us to see it, like a
microscope allowed us to see bacteria, and a telescope stars.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Bretn
On 9/17/2012 1:17 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I would say computers were the tool that allowed us to see it, like a
microscope allowed us to see bacteria, and a telescope stars.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM,
Benoit Mandelbrot did. But what does interesting have to do with it?
Did anyone think that empty patch of sky was interesting before
Hubble turned it into one of the most amazing photos ever taken?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But did anybody think z' =
On 9/17/2012 2:45 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Benoit Mandelbrot did.
I wasn't aware of that. Did he have a proof of the fractal nature of the set before he
calculated it?
Brent
But what does interesting have to do with it?
Did anyone think that empty patch of sky was interesting before
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/17/2012 2:45 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Benoit Mandelbrot did.
I wasn't aware of that. Did he have a proof of the fractal nature of the
set before he calculated it?
Brent
I don't know. I doubt it, I'm not even sure
abstractions on top of this fundamental skill.
SO - prime numbers, I think, emerge from a peculiar characteristic of
our ability to judge relative magnitudes, and the way this feeds into
the abstractions we build on top of that ability.
=*=
Let’s say you take a board and divide it into 3 sections
, and in our ability to build
higher level abstractions on top of this fundamental skill.
SO - prime numbers, I think, emerge from a peculiar characteristic of
our ability to judge relative magnitudes, and the way this feeds into
the abstractions we build on top of that ability.
=*=
Let’s say you take
relationship to be
beautiful?
Thanks Stephen!
Actually my initial example of numeracy isn't quite right, but it's not
important to the rest of the argument.
My main point is that you can get to the concept of prime numbers just
using relative magnitudes that we have an innate sense
Touche.
But I don't believe (in?) it - I am agnostic. Nonbeliever.
(SONG: I lost my turf in San Francisco)
J
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote (to Craig):
But you
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man,
then I think they were mind-created (platonic) not brain-created (human
creations).
Are the prime numbers an invention by man or one of man's discoveries ?
I believe that the prime numbers are not a human
Dear Roger,
Could the mere possibility of being a number (without the
specificity of which one) be considered to be there from the beginning?
On 9/6/2012 7:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man,
then I think
Stathis wrote (to Craig):
*But you believe that the neurochemicals do things contrary to what
chemists would predict, for example an ion channel opening or closing
without any cause such as a change in transmembrane potential or
ligand concentration. We've talked about this before and it just
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote (to Craig):
But you believe that the neurochemicals do things contrary to what
chemists would predict, for example an ion channel opening or closing
without any cause such as a change in transmembrane potential
--- Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
among others:
*
I understood Tom's phrase atomic parts as meaning
component parts rather
than literally what scientists call atoms
fine, I used Tom's word. It went to a nice extreme.
*
Then about 'rules':
It was deliberately left
John M writes:
Tom Caylor writes:
1) The reductionist definition that something is
determined by the
sum of atomic parts and rules.
So how about this: EITHER something is determined by
the sum of atomic parts
and rules OR it is truly random.
Sum of atomic parts? I am not sure
Brent Meeker wrote:
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish true randomness from
just
unpredictable randomness. So there are theories of QM in which the
randomness
is just unpredictable, like Bohm's - and here's a recent paper on that
theme you
may find interesting:
Le 06-avr.-06, à 10:04, Dominic Tarr a écrit :
Bruno wrote
...
Karl Popper did make an attempt to explain
free-will in term of self-diagonalization indeed. The basic and
simple idea is that IF I can totally predict myself, then I have the
opportunity to refute such a prediction. This is
...Karl Popper did make an attempt to explain
free-will in term of self-diagonalization indeed. The basic and
simple idea is that IF I can totally predict myself, then I have the
opportunity to refute such a prediction. This is why in a trial your
lawyer cannot invoke determinacy (like my
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
1) The reductionist definition that something is determined by the
sum of atomic parts and rules.
So how about this: EITHER something is determined by the sum of atomic parts
and rules OR it is truly random.
There are two mechanisms
the
typicality of type-A observations be the limit of f(A) as R---infinity.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Brent Meeker
Skickat: den 6 april 2006 18:21
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: Do prime numbers have free
@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: Do prime numbers have free will?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
1) The reductionist definition that something is
determined by the
sum of atomic parts and rules.
So how about this: EITHER something is determined
by the sum
however, as a person's local environment might plausibly contain a
computer which modeled their local environment and predicted their
behaviour. so the model would actually have to model itself,
Why assume the computer is part of the person's environment?
because it might be.
now
instructive to see that primes already behaves like that
There are two facts about the distribution of prime numbers of which I hope to convince you so overwhelmingly that they will be permanently engraved in your hearts. The first is that, despite their simple definition and role as the building
because it can be defined only
negatively. Free from what?
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FoR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:42:03 +0200
Subject: Do prime numbers have free will?
Hi,
I love so much
.
There's *probably* a
*deterministic* reason for that too. ;)
Tom
-Original Message-
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Do prime numbers have free will?
Tom,
I did not shoot my
90 matches
Mail list logo
