On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:13 AM, marc.geddes marc.ged...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Penrose is nonsense if taken literally, he's looking at the
wrong level of organization, mind has got nothing to do with
fundamental physics directly I think. But speaking *metaphorically*
it can lead to good
On Dec 31 2009, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You may be right. But it is still an open problem to just define
probability (except the probability one) in the mechanist settting.
Rich metaphor, but a promise for a lot of work, to make this precise
enough in the
You may be right. But it is still an open problem to just define
probability (except the probability one) in the mechanist settting.
Rich metaphor, but a promise for a lot of work, to make this precise
enough in the mechanist frame. It would mean that not only we have a
measure (and a linear
Dear Marc,
you emerged from the conventional figment of a 'physical world' view and
elevated into the concept of mind (what I don't know where, what and how
to define...) - anyway, to think in mental terms instead of the conventional
physical figments.
Then you use the complacent terms of the
4 matches
Mail list logo
