Le Samedi 18 Mars 2006 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Ground them operationally, then. Real things have real properties and
unreal
things don't. Real properties can be observed empirically. Primeness
then is not
a real property.
I have to ask you one more time, but I'll reverse the
Le Samedi 18 Mars 2006 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Ground them operationally, then. Real things have real properties and
unreal
things don't. Real properties can be observed empirically. Primeness
then is not
a real property.
I'll take another stupid example to try to explain my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
respect the fact). By the way I am
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Samedi 18 Mars 2006 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Ground them operationally, then. Real things have real properties and
unreal
things don't. Real properties can be observed empirically. Primeness
then is not
a real property.
I have to ask you one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
That [The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
other mathematical objects which are only abstract. is what
I called a dualist view.
Dualism says
Brent Meeker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical
object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is
Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe includes
a counterpart of you.
I meant:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe including
a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
That [The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
other mathematical objects which are only abstract. is what
I called a dualist view.
Le 17-mars-06, à 16:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I don't agree. I think you slip from minds can be implemented on more
than one kind of hardware to minds do not need any kind of hardware.
I slip? Where ?
I take care of precisely not doing that, mainly through UDA *plus* the
movie graph
Le 15-mars-06, à 17:51, Georges Quenot a écrit :
*If* comp is true. I am not sure of that.
Me too. But it is the theory I am studying. Also comp provides some
neat etalon philosophy to compare with other theories. The advantage
of comp (which I recall includes Church thesis) is that, at
Le 17-mars-06, à 20:27, Hal Finney a écrit :
John M writes:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
Let me express how solipsism can be analyzed in the model where
physical
reality is part of mathematical reality.
Let us adopt Bruno's UDA perspective: the Universal Dovetailer
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Samedi 18 Mars 2006 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Ground them operationally, then. Real things have real properties and
unreal
things don't. Real properties can be observed empirically. Primeness
then is not
a real property.
I have to ask
Georges Quénot wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe includes
a counterpart of you.
I meant:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter
George Levy wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Samedi 18 Mars 2006 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Ground them operationally, then. Real things have real properties and
unreal
things don't. Real properties can be observed empirically. Primeness
then is not
a real property.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:55:37PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Maps are isomorphic to
territories, but are not territories.
Well. Territories *are* maps. Just a very specific type
of map but maps anyway.
err...no they are not. You can't grow potatoes in a map of a farm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe including
a counterpart of you would be a solution.
1) Any configuration of material bodies can be represented as a some
very long
But the tape can also hold an encoding of the Turing machine to
perform the interpretation. This is the essence of the compiler
theorem. One can simply iterate this process such that there is no
concrete machine interpreting the tape. I think this is another way
of putting the UDA.
Cheers
On
Are you saying that a tape of infinite length, with infinite digits, is not
Turing emulable?
I don't understand how the 'compiler theorem' makes a 'concrete' machine
unnecessary. I agree that the tape can contain an encoding of the Turing
machine - as well as anything else that's
20 matches
Mail list logo
