On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-20, 20:50:22
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com
On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations
are already
On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the numbers build an arithmetic body
The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body.
and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they
can implement the UD.
No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if
made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:16:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.
Craig
To understand a thing is to
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio
On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
It's not doing the computations
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2012-09-21, 11:27:56
*Subject:* Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P.
On 21 Sep 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or
On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using
only empty
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space?
You are quite
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified,
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:10:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of
On 9/20/2012 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are discussing here is
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.
Craig
To understand a thing is to control a thing.
--
Onward!
Stephen
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
If the version of comp we are
On 07 Aug 2010, at 00:05, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Tegmark argues that reality is a mathematical structure and states
that an open problem is finding a mathematical structure which is
isomorphic to reality. This might or might not be clear: the
mathematical structure
John Mikes wrote:
...Rectangles are not found in nature and not are numbers; both are
abstractions of things we see in nature...
Pray: what things? and how are they 'abstracted into numbers?
(Rectangles etc. - IMO - are artifacts made (upon/within) a system of
human application).
Yet
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Tegmark argues that reality is a mathematical structure and states that an
open problem is finding a mathematical structure which is isomorphic to
reality. This might or might not be clear: the mathematical structure with
the property that all mathematical structures can be
I am not sure whether I reply to Brian, or to Bruno? there are remarks on *my
texts to Brian* without marking the replier and at the end it reads: *
Bruno* with no further ado.
Never mind, I want to be short.
...Rectangles are not found in nature and not are numbers; both are
abstractions of
On 05 Aug 2010, at 01:18, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Hmm... Lawvere has tried to build an all encompassing universal
mathematical structure, but he failed. It was an interesting failure
as he discovered the notion of topos, (discovered also independently
by Groethendieck) which is more a
John Mikes wrote:
Brian,
nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's
application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for
the stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the
Peano axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the
On 02 Aug 2010, at 00:30, Brian Tenneson wrote:
As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be
possible to prove that the level 4 multiverse is accounted for by
a mathematical structure..
Hmm... Lawvere has tried to build an all encompassing universal
mathematical
Quentin:
excellent. Your Voltairian acridity showed perfectly how bad my argument
was. A typical gotcha.
Now aout existence: that (noun!) concept is the target of my frequent
question, I used the topic as: to exist, a verb, in the widest sense.
What may lead to desperate argumentation about the
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different.
The Peano axioms for numbers
On 8/2/2010 12:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM,
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/2/2010 12:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I quite
Hi John,
On 01 Aug 2010, at 00:05, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and David:
there are concepts in your extremely interesting and informative
discussion - 'beyond me':
First the real existence (beyond Bruno's 1st person sharable
experience by machines).
I call 'existence' everything that
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/2/2010 1:39 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
...
Meaning of words can change and do change. Meaning of english words are
dependant of humans. Meaning of mathematical thruths aren't.
Mathematical truths don't have meaning.
Well I must be
Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com writes:
On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The only problem is if numbers were a human invention... other
humans could come with a prime number that is even and not
2... There would exists a biggest number, 1+1=2 could be false
On 8/2/2010 11:14 AM, Mark Buda wrote:
Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com writes:
On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The only problem is if numbers were a human invention... other
humans could come with a prime number that is even and not
2... There would exists
Brian,
nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's
application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the
stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano
axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the origination of
numbers.
2010/8/2 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
Brian,
nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's
application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the
stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano
axioms and found nothing in them
I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different.
The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not
dependent on us humans to exist which entails that there are infinite
sets by assuming an induction property held by (sets of) numbers.
So while counting
As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be possible
to prove that the level 4 multiverse is accounted for by a
mathematical structure.. It's a project I've been working on which
assumes that the reality hypothesis implies the mathematical universe
hypothesis.
Bruno
On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different.
The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not
dependent on us humans to exist which entails that there are infinite
sets by assuming an induction property held
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are different.
The Peano axioms for numbers makes it seem like numbers are not dependent
on us humans to exist which entails that there are
On 8/1/2010 3:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/2 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 8/1/2010 3:24 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I quite agree that counting and the existence of numbers are
different.
The Peano axioms for numbers makes it
On 31 Jul 2010, at 00:49, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 July 2010 17:35, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
... and if you believe that the universe can be accounted for by a
some
consistent mathematical structure. Which is an open problem. Assuming
mechanism, physical universes have no
Bruno and David:
there are concepts in your extremely interesting and informative discussion
- 'beyond me':
First the real existence (beyond Bruno's 1st person sharable experience by
machines).
I call 'existence' everything that emerges in (any) 'mind' without calling
it *real*, or *unreal*. Who
On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org
mailto:her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe
logical
Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe
logical propositions about them.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist in the
Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
... I do understand that the existence of the
On 30 Jul 2010, at 17:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the
On 30 July 2010 17:35, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
... and if you believe that the universe can be accounted for by a some
consistent mathematical structure. Which is an open problem. Assuming
mechanism, physical universes have no real existence at all, except as first
person
Numbers existed before people on this rock began to understand them. If not
number of atoms in the universe, then the number of cells in organisms one
day prior to 10,000 years ago. or anything really, that had the potential to
be counted, one day prior to 10,000 years ago.
If all numbers are
On 7/29/2010 3:28 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
Quantum mechanics suggests maybe not. If there were no conscious
observers to collapse the wave function of the universe after the big
bang, then what, pray tell, would constitute an atom that might be
counted?
This assumes that conscious observers are
Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the existence
of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about the ideas we call
number and existence. And if you bring a definition of number in terms of
other ideas such as successor, then you are simply restating
On 7/29/2010 4:03 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the
existence of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about
the ideas we call number and existence.
What logical proposition would that be? A proposition like Every
number
Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com writes:
On 7/29/2010 4:03 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the
existence of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about the
ideas we call number and existence.
What logical
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe
logical propositions about them. They exist because minds believe
logical propositions
Bruno wrote:
* ( - ...are true independently of you, matter, universe, bibles, etc.
*- )
* No theorem of math, even of intuitionist math makes any sense,
without such belief*...
*
*WHO'S BELIEF?* or rather: *WHATS BELIEF*? does a snail believe that
2+13=15, or a rock?
I bet for the
Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular
numbers are inventions?
If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me,
counterintuitive.
Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first understood
by humans to some extent. There was a
Brian:
it is not so simple. Not that some chap sat down 10,000 years ago and said
I just invented the numbers let's say: from 1 to 1 zillion, - the process
is a long development parallel with brain, bodily and life-style evolution.
The date - I think - refers to numbering amounts with a gradual
On 7/26/2010 6:24 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular
numbers are inventions?
If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me,
counterintuitive.
Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first
On 26 Jul 2010, at 18:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/26/2010 6:24 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just
particular numbers are inventions?
If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me,
counterintuitive.
Numbers existed
Dear John,
On 21 Jul 2010, at 22:03, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
on diverse lists I bounce into the 'numbers' idea - in different
variations. I wonder if your position states that the world
(whatever) has been 'erected' (wrong word) based on integer numbers
and their additive
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
This cannot be explained away by
faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a
deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such
beliefs): rather,
dan9el wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that
one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god
(because no empirical finding counts for or against such
beliefs): rather,
Le 11-nov.-06, à 19:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit :
No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1
is not a prime number.
This is for me a typical arithmetical realist statement.
Most philosophers who use the possible
worlds
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker wrote:
OK. But I'd say that in fact almost no one believes something without any
evidence, i.e. on *blind* faith. Religious faith is usually belief based
on *selected* evidence; it is faith because it is contrary to the total
evidence. Bruno seems
Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit :
No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1
is not a prime number.
This is for me a typical arithmetical realist statement.
Causality , as opposed
to material implication, requires contingency.
Yes. And grosso modo there will be as
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit :
No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1
is not a prime number.
This is for me a typical arithmetical realist statement.
Most philosophers who use the possible
worlds terminology do nothing PW's actually
Brent Meeker writes:
This cannot be explained away by
faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a
deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such
beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously
believing x and not-x.
Seems like
Johnathan Corgan writes:
That's because for hundreds, if not thousands, of years their theologians
have had to explain why their God is invisible, unnoticable,
incompehensible, and undetectable. So a null experimental outcome,
like the recent studies of the efficacy of healing
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 00:30 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
Great article! I initially thought that it was written by some poor, honest
Christian
genuinely struggling with the logical consequences of his beliefs. But then
such a
person
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
This cannot be explained away by
faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a
deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such
beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't
Peter Jones writes:
Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded
their
brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you
can
get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs
process).
Why? Plato's heaven is full of
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you
Peter Jones (1Z) a écrit :
Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded
their
brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you
can
get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs
process).
Why? Plato's heaven is full of mathematical
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. Your longer
metaphysics post begs many of the questions addressed in this list.
Personally: I have no theory, just an argument showing that if we take
the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Peter Jones (1Z) a écrit :
Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded
their
brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you
can
get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs
process).
Why? Plato's
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain
why you don't argue against it.
Your longer
metaphysics post
Le 09-nov.-06, à 13:53, 1Z a écrit :
If you can show that subjective experience exists in Platonia,
you can use that to show that some things will seem dynamical.
If you can show that there a dynamic processes in Platonia,
you can use that to show there are running computations
and
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain
why you don't argue
: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Brent Meeker writes:
snip
A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the
natural order, i.e. does miracles
Brent Meeker writes:
It's also possible that God intervenes all the time in a perfectly
consistent
manner to sustain natural laws, such that if he stopped doing so the whole
universe would instantly disintegrate.
That's possible, but then he's a deist God. He doesn't do miracles
Le 07-nov.-06, à 20:10, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes
or
worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants).
These
universes can be
101 - 200 of 595 matches
Mail list logo
