Thanks Jason
I love that series! Yes, Minsky makes the point very well. He's obviously
an everythingist of the so-called platonic sort (sorry Brent). "If you have
the idea of the program and its processes, then that's enough to determine
everything that happens in it." This general trend, of some
David,
I always appreciate your e-mails. Your comments regarding the term
"existence" reminds me of what Minsky says of the word (2 minutes 50
seconds in):
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-are-possible-worlds#video-2729
I agree that humans have an innate prejudice against the reality of
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic
On 3/13/2014 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't had the
time to
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you
On 13 Mar 2014, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on
On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you
On 3/13/2014 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10:45AM +1300, LizR wrote:
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
Not me (alas). Although it is visible when typing my response.
Cheers
--
Prof Russell Standish
On 13 Mar 2014, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 13 Mar 2014, at 22:10, LizR wrote:
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
Nice, I hope everyone see it. Does someone not see a lozenge? Here: ◊
Do someone not see Gödel's second theorem here: ◊t - ~[]◊t ?
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are
On 14 Mar 2014, at 01:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10:45AM +1300, LizR wrote:
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
Not me (alas).
Damned. I will need to use the more ugly instead of the cute ◊ !
No problem.
Bruno
Although it is visible when
On 3/13/2014 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
which was my objection to writing t. In such a formula, t can only be regarded as
shorthand for some tautology.
If you want. Any simple provable proposition would do.
Then f also occurs in every world since (p ~p) can be formed in every world. But
On 14 Mar 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
which was my objection to writing t. In such a formula, t can
only be regarded as shorthand for some tautology.
If you want. Any simple provable proposition would do.
Then f also occurs in every world
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please
forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent reality
with t.
Shortly,
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't had the time
to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't understand how you
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't
had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I
don't
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:10:31 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Sure, consciousness here-and-now is undoubtable. But the p refers to the
contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many cases. I am in
pain cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but other felt
Hi Terran,
On 11 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Sure, consciousness here-and-now is undoubtable. But the p refers
to the contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many
cases. I am in pain cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but
other felt
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't
had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I
don't understand how you could represent reality with t.
Thanks,
T
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist,
to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring.
To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing
according to their definitions.
Well, all the
Roger,
Is God part of your reality and if so how do you experience God, or is
god just a theory.?
For me god is described by a theory.
Richard
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Weyl makes complicated what is ultimately simple--
reality,
On 07 Jul 2012, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno: here we go again (quote from Ronald Reagan).
The vocabulary of different (belief?) systems. You seem to abide
firmly at axioms, meaning not more in MY vocabulary than
postulates to make OUR (actual, conventional, ongoing) theories
On 06 Jul 2012, at 22:45, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2
are just imagining something else. -
do you mean: imagining something else
THAN WHAT YOU WERE IMAGINING? sounds like a claim to some
priviledge to imagining - only YOUR
Dear Bruno: here we go again (quote from Ronald Reagan).
The vocabulary of different (belief?) systems. You seem to abide firmly
at axioms, meaning not more in MY vocabulary than postulates to make *OUR
*(actual, conventional, ongoing) theories VALID. Changing theories make
axioms invalid.
Bruno:
*Right. I think that people believing that 1+1 can be different of 2 are
just imagining something else.* -
do you mean: imagining something else
THAN WHAT YOU WERE *IMAGINING*? sounds like a claim to some priviledge to
imagining - only YOUR WAY?
(I know you will vehemently deny that - ha
Ok then, I guess I got caught.Confession: On most days, I am agnostically
exposed ideologue of 1 + 1 = 2.
Please forgive the offense of my heresy. Maybe a prohibitive law should be
drafted to stop these kinds of irresponsible thoughts :)
But privilege to imagining? He just said something else,
Hi Guitar boy,
On 04 Jul 2012, at 16:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hello Everythinglisters,
First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions
from time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more musical
tendency.
It's funny how this game keeps cropping up
On 05 Jul 2012, at 05:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
It seems obvious that what is true, as referenced below, is
some kind of collection and that it's labeling can easily be seen to
not be fixed a priori. We might think of it of a Kripke frame and
the models have forced truths. The
The thread is about the possibility of an omnipotent being being able to
manipulate what is true.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everythinglisters,
First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions from
time to
Yup, so anything goes from there. But I fail to see anything convincingly
constructive, except maybe a few ideas for fiction, where everybody is
omnipotent god that can manipulate truth. So fiction section in bookstore
or Amazon?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
On 7/4/2012 11:05 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
The thread is about the possibility of an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what
is true.
I guess I don't understand that. I can manipulate what's true. It's true I am sitting at
a computer - and I can stand up so it would be false. So
Hi,
It seems obvious that what is true, as referenced below, is some
kind of collection and that it's labeling can easily be seen to not be
fixed a priori. We might think of it of aKripke frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics and the models have
forced truths. The thing
On 28 Jun 2012, at 22:18, Brian Tenneson wrote:
What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is
actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be
17). Not manipulate the perception of truth.
You can just define a new addition + by the rule x + y = the
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever WE
accept is human.
What is Mother Nature accepting?
John M
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever
WE accept is human.
Is that an absolute truth?
In my humble opinion, WE = human
Bruno asked:
. Is that an absolute truth?
By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept better
expressions.
(Except for absolute truth - ha ha).
And Teilhard was a great master of words.
John M
On Fri,
Dear John,
Dear Bruno, think about it as absolute truth:
Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?
If 11 is a notation for 2, then it is the *same* absolute truth,
just written with non standard notation.
If 11 denotes eleven (1*10 + 1), as it usually does, then it is an
absolute falsity, which
Brent:
I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant
logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more.
So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives.
John
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/27/2012 2:26 PM, John Mikes wrote:
What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different
parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It
may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is
presumably zero overlap and no means of travel to there. The basic
premise is
On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1
and 1 make 11, nothing more.
So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives.
John
Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of
On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels,
different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It may be completely
impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no
What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is
actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be 17). Not
manipulate the perception of truth.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Dear Bruno, think about it as absolute truth:
Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?
Respectfully John
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello John,
On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Doesn't it emerge in this respect WHAT truth? or rather
On 6/27/2012 2:26 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, think about it as absolute truth:
Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11?
Respectfully John
Naah! It's 10.
Brent
There are 10 kinds of people; those who think in binary and those who don't.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Hello John,
On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Doesn't it emerge in this respect WHAT truth? or rather
WHOSE truth? is there an accepted authority to verify an
absolute truth judgeable from a different belief system?
I don't think such authority exists. We can only agree
Bruno:
Doesn't it emerge in this respect WHAT truth? or rather
WHOSE truth? is there an accepted authority to verify an absolute truth
judgeable from a different belief system?
JohnM
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Jun 2012, at 09:47, Evgenii
On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I have many questions.
One is what if truth were malleable? --
HI Brian,
If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
standards of truth varied, how could we tell? This
On 23 Jun 2012, at 09:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I have many questions.
One is what if truth were malleable? --
HI Brian,
If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
On 2/12/2012 15:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/11/2012 5:15 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/11/2012 05:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a
sentence
has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you
know
On 2/11/2012 5:15 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/11/2012 05:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a
sentence
has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you
know it or not.
Sure, but it is not just you
On 2/11/2012 05:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a sentence
has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you
know it or not.
Sure, but it is not just you to whom a given sentence may have
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a sentence
has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you
know it or not.
Sure, but it is not just you to whom a given sentence may have the
same
exact truth value. This is like
55 matches
Mail list logo
