Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi David,
Le 18-août-06, à 02:16, David Nyman wrote (answering John):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John
Thanks for taking the trouble to express your thoughts at such length.
I won't say too much now, as I have to leave shortly to meet a long
lost relative -
Tom Caylor writes:
As I remember it, my interpretation/expansion of the Yes Doctor
assumption is that 1) there is a (finite of course) level of (digital)
substitution (called the correct level of substitution) that is
sufficient to represent all that I am, and all that I could be if I
Le 21-août-06, à 20:28, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:32:14PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
The other sticking point is, given computationalism
is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have
been arguments
that a
Le 19-août-06, à 16:35, 1Z a écrit :
No, I am suggesting that 0-width slices don't contain
enough information to predict future states in physics.
What about a quantum state?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
Le 21-août-06, à 16:01, 1Z a écrit :
Exactly. And if non-phsyical systems (Plato' Heaven) don't
implement counterfactuals, then they can't run programmes,
and if Plato's heaven can't run programmes, it can't be running us as
programmes.
I would say that only non-physical system implement
Le 19-août-06, à 21:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John M.) a écrit :
BTW I have a problem with the perfect 6:
ITS DIVISORS are 1,2,3,6, the sum of which is 12, not 6 and it looks
that
there is NO other perfect number in this sense either.
I have define a number to be perfect when it is equal to
Le 22-août-06, à 05:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
x-tad-bigger- Original Message -/x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerFrom:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerBruno Marchal/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger
x-tad-biggerTo:/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime
numbers, as has been discussed regarding your Riemann zeta function
TOE. As I suggested on that thread, it could be that the behavior of
the Riemann zeta function follows a collapse that is dependent on
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-août-06, à 16:01, 1Z a écrit :
Exactly. And if non-phsyical systems (Plato' Heaven) don't
implement counterfactuals, then they can't run programmes,
and if Plato's heaven can't run programmes, it can't be running us as
programmes.
I would say that only
Hi,
concerning process and programs, all boils down to the timeless/time argument.
I'm astonished that you accept time as is, I mean if time there is it has been
created at the same time as our universe in the bigbang. Time begin when the
universe begin, so you accept that time can occur in a
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
concerning process and programs, all boils down to the timeless/time argument.
I'm astonished that you accept time as is, I mean if time there is it has been
created at the same time as our universe in the bigbang. Time begin when the
universe begin, so you
Brent meeker writes (quoting SP):
Every physical system contains if-then statements. If the grooves on the
record were different,
then the sound coming out of the speakers would also be different.
That's not a statement contained in the physical system; it's a statement
about other
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:32:14PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
The other sticking point is, given computationalism
is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have
been arguments
that a computation is
Brent meeker writes (quoting Peter Jones, Quentin Anciaux and SP):
Hi,
Le Dimanche 20 Août 2006 05:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
What about an inputless computer program, running deterministically
like a recording. Would that count as a program at
Le 22-août-06, à 14:36, 1Z a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
concerning process and programs, all boils down to the timeless/time
argument.
I'm astonished that you accept time as is, I mean if time there is it
has been
created at the same time as our universe in the bigbang.
Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, I suppose you could say I'm intelligent but not I + my
environment are intelligent.
That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent
beings, and you are left
with the problem of how to decide whether a
Le 21-août-06, à 04:14, David Nyman a écrit :
Bruno
(BTW please delete any previous version of this posted in error.)
I'm absolutely sincere in what I've said about approaching comp in 'as
if' mode.
All right. I thought so. Let us try to see if and where we differ.
But at the
Bruno:
I read you. I wanted to make a 'link' to
"heaven". Feynman had a humorous mind (as most intelligent people). He
also referred to the medieval silliness of realizing angels (in any
discussion).
Now back to numbers:
I always considered the "world" of (pure) math
[numbers?] a separate
1Z wrote:
That's the strangest thign I've read ina long
time.
!!! That's odd, because this's the stringest thagn I've road ina ling
tome.
David
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime
numbers, as has been discussed regarding your
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can agree. No physicist posit matter in a fundamental theory.
All physical theories are theories of matter (mass/energy).
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime
numbers, as has been discussed regarding your Riemann zeta function
TOE. As I suggested on that thread, it could be that the behavior of
the Riemann zeta function follows a collapse that is
Tom Caylor wrote:
But then I think this search
for invariance eventually brings us full circle to a self-referential
paradox. Math is whatever we observe (to be true / to exist)
independent of the observer.
The fact that an observer can observe something doesn't make it
dependent
on the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, I suppose you could say I'm intelligent but not I + my
environment are intelligent.
That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent
beings, and you are left
with the problem of how to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because comp makes it possible to postulate a simple theory where
everything is communicable in a third person way. By making the first
person primitive, you loose the ability to explain it (or to get some
best possible third person explanation).
I'm still not sure I've
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
(See below)
Teach! -
I have a difference against your mathematical definition! (ha
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes (quoting SP):
Every physical system contains if-then statements. If the grooves on the
record were different, then the sound coming out of the speakers would also
be
different.
That's not a statement contained in the physical system;
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-août-06, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, I suppose you could say I'm intelligent but not I + my
environment are intelligent.
That still allows that an inputless program might contain intelligent
beings, and you are left
with the problem of how to
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:18:06PM -, 1Z wrote:
That is an interesting point. However, a computation would have to be
associated
with all related branches in order to bring all the counterfactuals (or
rather
conditionals) into a single computation.
(IOW treating branches
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
You might say that a computer program has a two-way interaction with its
environment while a recording does not, but it is easy to imagine a
situation
where this can be perfectly reproduced by a recording. In run no. 1, you
start up
the computer
29 matches
Mail list logo
