Tom, Quentin:
The idea that any string of symbols/ any action/ any apparently inert object
can signify anything at all if appropriately interpreted is a recurrent one
in list discussions. In much of the philosophical literature this seems to
be either a problem to explain away or a
Le 03-avr.-06, 14:46, LISP a crit :
Has anybody read Godel's orginal proof before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Original_proof_of_G%C3%B6del%27s_completeness_theorem
A long time ago I take a look on it.
The above proof sketch is partial.
Like most computer scientists, I was
Le 01-avr.-06, à 19:18, 1Z a écrit :
All right but sometime map are continuously or computationally
embedded
in the territory, and so there is a fixed point where the point of the
map coincide with the point of the territory: typically yhe indexical
where you are, both with respect to
Le 04-avr.-06, à 10:40, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
For example: (x)(0 s(x)) can be replaced by Ey((x)(y s(x) (z)
Mmh... You are asked to imagine the symbol for not equal between the
0 and the s(x), and between the y and s(x). It does not print well!
Sorry.
Bruno
Le 04-avr.-06, à 04:35, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
x-tad-bigger
/x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerHow do numbers *distinguish* (if I am permitted to use that word) between */x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerpossibility/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger* and */x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggeractuality/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger*? Is
Hi John,
So: WHAT can be conscious?
A person. Or a soul. Or someone ...
... *relatively* incarnated in a body or in numbers or machines if we
accept the comp hyp.
I would say,
Best
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Hi,
I love so much this citation (often quoted) of D. Zagier, which seems to me to describe so well what is peculiar with ... humans, which behaviors are simultaneously completely determinated by numbers/math or waves/physics and at the same time are so much rich and unpredictible. I find
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
So: WHAT can be conscious?
A person. Or a soul. Or someone ...
... *relatively* incarnated in a body or in numbers
or machines if we
accept the comp hyp.
I would say,
Best
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
John ,
Bruno:
Aren't you fall back in your 2nd par at the end into
an 'idem per idem' explanation?
I asked (from Georges) a way to GET AWAY from the
number-essence or ID when we assign (con)ceptual
meanings to ideas/things you people call NUMBERS
ONLY. You return to a number-based
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 01-avr.-06, à 19:18, 1Z a écrit :
...
If you believe in absolute QM (or just assume absolute QM I eman QM
without wave collapse) then, obviously, observers are subject to the
SWE, and are multiplied or differentiated continuously.
It may be so, but not
Bruno,
To help us understand this: How is this different from saying the toss
of a coin is both unpredictable and yet determined by laws?
Another thought is that there are the two extremes of the meaning of
law:
1) The reductionist definition that something can be predicted by the
sum of
Bruno,
you failed to give me an answer. I must be more
simpleminded than you 'math-minded people' who see
some relation between a 'big' number and the Gone with
the Wind. I don't. No matter how big and how long (you
said: eternity and infinitely big? I don't buy such
conditions. These say to me:
Tom, - ha ha,
I would have asked the same stupid question, because a
poisitve integer is just so the product of -1 and
the NEGATIVE of the integer plus the (positive)
integer itself and 1. You did not want that either.
I think a better restriction is in order, but let me
stop here. I don't want
13 matches
Mail list logo
