On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some
On 10 Jun 2015, at 16:56, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially
unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that
all other minds are you as well?
The crime is
On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is
On 10 Jun 2015, at 03:35, Kim Jones wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist
hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think)
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED,
string theory or theoretical computer science.
A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That
does not refute
On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the
same results always follow, regardless of
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
does a group mind refer to ourself or myselves ?
That depends on the speed of light and how far apart the individual brains
are. It they're far apart and it takes a long time to send a signal to
another brain relative to the time it takes to
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable
about the belief that you are the only mind and that all other minds are
you as well?
The crime is intellectual dishonesty. I don't believe anyone this side
On 10 Jun 2015, at 2:20 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. What
are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with me.)
Thanks! :)
On 6/10/2015 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also
On 6/10/2015 7:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially unacceptable
about the belief that you are the only mind and that
all other minds are you as
On 11 June 2015 at 10:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm a solipsist and I'm surprised more philosophers aren't solipsists.
--- letter to Bertrand Russell
Phew, another solipsist! I was afraid I might be the only one.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the
application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as
kicking back. Johnson did
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician.
This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the
numbers, but
On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:37, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or
whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something
that was invented, and could
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent)
Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato's
Theaetetus dialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think
that's a deficiency in modal
On 09 Jun 2015, at 00:21, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We
know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations
can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean
On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in
arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes
ZFC
(or whatever) real, or not, is
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We
know that brains can be conscious, and we
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths
On 9 Jun 2015, at 8:07 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results
always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application
On 08 Jun 2015, at 18:40, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That
set can be defined in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in
arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA
explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive matter for
making more
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis
(also known as the strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that
position is proved to be
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
What axioms led to arithmetic?
The Peano axioms. They were chosen because they are very simple and self
evident. You need to be very conservative when picking axioms, for example
we could just add the Goldbach Conjecture as an
On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important
because everyone agree
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the
strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a
On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
What axioms led to arithmetic?
The Peano axioms.
Or the Robinson axiom, or many other systems. but they don't disagree
on any formula. Even the theories having weird axioms
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the
application is made. This is not what is
On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED, string theory or
theoretical computer science.
A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That does not refute that
rockets can work.
Brent :)
--
You
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the
application is made.
On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set
On 10 Jun 2015, at 11:53 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09
On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude.
What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with
me.)
Thanks! :)
So yes, I don't think hurling 'solopsist!' at someone hurts
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a
mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion
of primitive matter for making more real some computations in place of others. It
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the
strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that position is proved
to be nonsense.
Comp is just I am a digitalizable
On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent)
Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified.
Plato'sTheaetetusdialogue
defines knowledge as true belief. I think that's a deficiency in modal
logic
insofar as it's supposed to
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important
because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the numbers, but that is not the case for
analysis, real numbers,
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know
that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also be
conscious. But that doesn't mean that only computations can be conscious,
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician.
This is
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 07:18:19PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a Newtonian world physics is deterministic
Yes, but deterministic is not the same as predictable.
so there is an exact solution:
That doesn't necessarily
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lizj...@gmail.com'); wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know
that brains can be conscious, and we assume
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(And what's wrong with sneaked ?)
I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic
is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we
cannot use a notion of primitive
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of
On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or
whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something that was
invented, and could equally well have been invented differently,
On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(And what's wrong with sneaked ?)
I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have
sneaked into the language:
On 6/8/2015 7:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(And what's wrong with sneaked ?)
I was trying to be faintly
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is
important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of
On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is
a
mathematical fact that nobody doubt
On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC
(or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it
something
On 08 Jun 2015, at 04:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set
can be defined in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T
On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent)
Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato's
Theaetetus dialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think
that's a deficiency in modal logic insofar as it's supposed to
formalize good informal reasoning. But I can see
On 08 Jun 2015, at 01:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/7/2015 3:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you
On 08 Jun 2015, at 04:31, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
everyone agrees that 2+2=4 by definition, it's not so clear that
arithmetic objects exist.
If 2+2=4 exists then 2+2=5 does too.
2+2 is true. That's all.
Platonia may contain all
On 08 Jun 2015, at 00:00, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that
mathematics is incapable
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be
defined in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T MAKE A COMPUTATION WITH A DEFINITION!
I can do
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that
mathematics is incapable of handling 4 coordinates?
Of course, applied mathematics exists, and you can represent event
in
On 06 Jun 2015, at 02:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
It's very relevant if you want
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is
incapable of handling 4 coordinates?
Of course, applied mathematics exists, and you can represent event in
mathematics, but you shopuld not confuse something
On 05 Jun 2015, at 20:35, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Event is a physical notion. Algorithmic non compressibility is
an mathematical notion.
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics
is incapable of handling 4
On 05 Jun 2015, at 21:03, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you agree that the simulated john Clark will still complain
that matter is missing in computation, despite we know that he
refers to number relations, without knowing it?
If the
On 8 June 2015 at 11:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/7/2015 3:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just
On Monday, June 8, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is
incapable of handling 4 coordinates?
Of
Must re-read my posts before sending.
That should of course be which hypothesis, not why (D'oh!)
And I seem to have too many coulds ...Oh well.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On 6/7/2015 3:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
An event is
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true sentences
of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be defined
in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T MAKE A COMPUTATION WITH A DEFINITION!
Half of your
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
everyone agrees that 2+2=4 by definition, it's not so clear that
arithmetic objects exist.
If 2+2=4 exists then 2+2=5 does too. Platonia may contain all true
statements but it contains all false statement as well and even Platonia
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
So what is this lot of stuff that the mathematical abstractions leave
out?
Newton's mathematical abstractions leave out how 3 bodies of similar mass
interact. Einstein's General Relativity field equations leave out the 3
body
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a Newtonian world physics is deterministic
Yes, but deterministic is not the same as predictable.
so there is an exact solution:
That doesn't necessarily follow. Approximations can be made but in general
an exact solution to
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(very much in theory) a TOE would describe everything - it would in
principle be like Laplace's demon (though possibly only for a multiverse).
Laplace's demon could make predictions and that is far more difficult than
just making a
On 6/6/2015 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(very much in theory) a TOE would describe everything - it would in principle
be like Laplace's
demon (though possibly only for a multiverse).
Laplace's demon could
On 05 Jun 2015, at 07:33, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The physical device is far more complex than the algorithm,
astronomically more complex, so you tell me which is a simplified
approximation of which.
The physical device is no more relevant to the
On 04 Jun 2015, at 19:54, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
or A string which is not algorithmically compressible,
Yes, that is a very good example of an event without a cause.
Event is a physical notion. Algorithmic non compressibility is
On 05 Jun 2015, at 06:59, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The point is just that the notion of computation, once you agree
with Church-Turing thesis, is made into a purely arithmetical notion.
That is incorrect. The Church-Turing thesis says
On 6/4/2015 10:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The physical device is far more complex than the algorithm,
astronomically more
complex, so you tell me which is a simplified approximation of which.
The physical device is no
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Event is a physical notion. Algorithmic non compressibility is an
mathematical notion.
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is
incapable of handling 4 coordinates?
Nothing caused the 9884th digit of
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Turing machine are not made of matter,
If it's not made of matter then it's not a machine it's a Turing
Something and it can't do a damn thing.
and computation is definable in arithmetic, just using the symbol s, 0,
+
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you agree that the simulated john Clark will still complain that
matter is missing in computation, despite we know that he refers to number
relations, without knowing it?
If the simulation had been done correctly then the
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of
what. And we both agree that a electronic computer is vastly more
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic computer is
vastly more complex than it's logical schematic, so why can we make a
working model of the complex
On 6 June 2015 at 07:22, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic computer is
vastly more complex than it's logical
On 6 June 2015 at 09:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic
On 6/5/2015 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of what. And we
LizR wrote:
On 6 June 2015 at 07:22, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a
simplified
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 4:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified
approximation
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The physical device is far more complex than the algorithm,
astronomically more complex, so you tell me which is a simplified
approximation of which.
The physical device is no more relevant to the algorithm than any other
universal system.
Yes,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Mr Clark's response to Bruno indicates that he (Mr Clark) doesn't know
what he (Bruno) is talking about
Correct. And Mr.Clark strongly suspects that Mr.Marchal doesn't either.
However Mr Clark's opinion on this isn't
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
