On 17 Aug 2009, at 16:23, ronaldheld wrote:
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
Very cute little paper.
I think the author would have found gravity waves, and thus space-
time, by extending its approach to the Octonions (I intuit this since
my reading of Kaufman book on knots and
On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote:
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
round.
Are you
On 18 Aug, 02:47, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer wrote:
AFAICS the assumption of primary matter 'solves' the white rabbit
problem by making it circular: i.e. assuming that primary matter
exists entails restricting the theory to just those mathematics and
On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers
On 18 Aug, 00:41, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Yep. I have no problem with any of that
Really? Let's see then.
The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a
statement like unicorns have one horn
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:41, Flammarion wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers
described or
explain.
But what is this primary
On 18 Aug, 01:43, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
I am trying to persuade Bruno that his argument has an implict
assumption of Platonism that should be made explicit. An assumption
of Platonism as a non-observable background might be
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:44, Flammarion wrote:
On 17 Aug, 18:51, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Does Bruno assume arithmetic is really real or just a really good
model, and can the
difference be known?
I don't think Bruno believes there is anything else
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:48, Flammarion wrote:
What do you mean by ontological existence?
Real in the Sense that I am Real.
What does that mean?
Do you mean real in the sense that 1-I is real? or
do you mean real in the sense that 3-I is real?
The 1-I reality (my consciousness) is
On 18 Aug, 09:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote:
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
However, some physicists - Julian Barbour for one - use
the term in a way that clearly has reference, as I think does Bruno.
Any Platonists
On 18 Aug, 10:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:48, Flammarion wrote:
What do you mean by ontological existence?
Real in the Sense that I am Real.
What does that mean?
Do you mean real in the sense that 1-I is real? or
do you mean real in the sense
On 18 Aug, 10:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
However, some physicists - Julian Barbour for one - use
the term in a way that
On 16 Aug, 16:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Aug 2009, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 14 Aug, 09:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are dismissing the first person indeterminacy. A stuffy TM can
run
a computation. But if a consciousness is attached to that
On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote:
Any physcial theory is distinguished from an
Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only
some
possible mathematical structures. That is a general statement that
is not affected by juggling one theory for another. I have
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 10:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From:
Actually Tegmark already proposed a similar no go theorem.
BTW, it is weird people that continue to talk about the Penrose-
Hameroff argument.
Hameroff is OK with the idea that a brain could be a machine (of the
quantum kind).
Penrose is not OK, with that idea. Penrose, in his book and
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:32:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 12:00, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From:
Bruno:
I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases
. Ronald
On Aug 18, 2:58 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 16:23, ronaldheld wrote:
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
Very
On 18 Aug 2009, at 11:59, Flammarion wrote:
On 18 Aug, 10:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:48, Flammarion wrote:
What do you mean by ontological existence?
Real in the Sense that I am Real.
What does that mean?
Do you mean real in the sense that
On 18 Aug 2009, at 12:14, Flammarion wrote:
Each branch of math has its own notion of existence, and with comp,
we
have a lot choice, for the ontic part, but usually I take
arithmetical existence, if only because this is taught in school, and
its enough to justified the existence of
Ronald,
On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:14, ronaldheld wrote:
I have heard of Octonians but have not used them.
I do not know anything about intelligible hypostases
Have you heard about Gödel's provability (beweisbar) predicate bew(x)?
If you have, define con(x) by ~bew ('~x') (carefully taking into
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote:
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:41, Flammarion wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers
described or
explain.
But
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 17 Aug, 14:46,
Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Somebody might be interested in ..
PHYSICAL REVIEW E 80, 021912 2009
Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human
consciousness is not biologically feasible
It has long been noted that microtubles are ubiquitous in the cells of other
On 18 Aug 2009, at 19:17, Brent Meeker wrote:
Some posts ago, you seem to accept arithmetical realism, so I am no
more sure of your position.
I may have assented to the *truth* of some propositions...
but truth is not existence. At least, the claim that
truth=existence is extraordinary
On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote:
Any physcial theory is distinguished from an
Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only
some
possible mathematical structures. That is a general statement
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 11:09 -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
It has long been noted that microtubles are ubiquitous in the cells of other
organs, not
just in the brain.
While I find the Penrose/Hameroff proposal very unconvincing for other
reasons, this is not one of them.
There are many shared
2009/8/18 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a
statement like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality
and thus being forced to accept the existence of unicorns, you could
instead paraphrase this in
On 18 Aug, 15:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2009, at 12:14, Flammarion wrote:
Each branch of math has its own notion of existence, and with comp,
we
have a lot choice, for the ontic part, but usually I take
arithmetical existence, if only because this is
Some of you may be interested in my model of our Universe in which I propose
that the fundamental building blocks of our Universe are tronnies each of
which is one-half of nothing, with no mass and no volume and a charge of +e
or -e. I have attached a copy of the first portion of my latest patent
On 18 Aug 2009, at 22:43, Flammarion wrote:
On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote:
Any physcial theory is distinguished from an
Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only
some
possible
On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no
doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot be primitive,
assuming comp. Matter is more or less the border of the ignorance of
universal machines (to be
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Aug 2009, at 22:43, Flammarion wrote:
On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote:
Any physcial theory is distinguished from an
Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only
David Nyman wrote:
On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no
doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot be primitive,
assuming comp. Matter is more or less the border of the ignorance of
On 19 Aug, 01:31, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
It seems that your argument uses MGA to
conclude that no physical instantaion is needed so
Turing-emulable=Turing-emulated. It
seems that all you can conclude is one cannot *know* that they have a correct
argument
showing
On 19 Aug, 01:31, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
It seems that your argument uses MGA to
conclude that no physical instantaion is needed so
Turing-emulable=Turing-emulated. It
seems that all you can conclude is one cannot *know* that they have a correct
argument
showing
On 19 Aug, 01:51, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I think you are right that the MGA is at the crux. But I don't know whether
to regard it
as proving that computation need not be physically instantiated or as a
reductio against
the yes doctor hypothesis. Saying yes to the
Hi,
Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC
I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-(
regards
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC
I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-(
regards
Colin Hales
Download OpenOffice. It's free. It'll read .doc and .docx files and it will
save in .doc
and .pdf (but it won't import .pdf).
42 matches
Mail list logo
