From: Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 1:13 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am
From: Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its
false?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun
On 13 Feb 2011, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:48 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Multisolipsism
On 13 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I am very interested in t
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
enough for the comp consequences.
Do you believe that Church thesis makes sense? That is enough to say
that you believe in the 'arithmetical platonia'. Peopl
On 14 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
What do you think the chances are that any random object in
Plato's heaven, or any random Turing machine will suppo
On 14 Feb 2011, at 09:40, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false
before its false?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
On
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief in Platonia
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If you agree
with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is enough for the comp
consequen
On 11 Feb 2011, at 19:10, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Feb 2011, at 23:58, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:29 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Peter,
Everything is fine. You should understa
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Plato's Heaven
On 14 Feb 2011, at 09:40, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
{SPK]
Allow me to add a comment to this brilliant argument. Following Jason’s
description of Plato
On 14 Feb 2011, at 11:11, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief in Platonia
Hi Bruno,
Umm, I did not mean to upset you personally.
I was not upset. May be too straight. Sorry if
On Feb 14, 6:50 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> Perhaps humans are merely
> severely disabled when it comes to seeing and feeling the mathematical
> reality and our deficit in seeing this reality is much the same as an ant's
> poor vision prevents it from making out a mountain vista.
If mathematici
On 14 Feb 2011, at 11:17, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Plato's Heaven
On 14 Feb 2011, at 09:40, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
{SPK]
Allow me to add a comment to this brilliant ar
On Feb 14, 7:24 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meeker wr
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
> you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
> enough for the comp consequences.,
Nope. Bivalence can be accepted as a formal rule and therefore
not as a claim
I wrote the paper to motivate the problem and show how QM is relevant
even though it is not relevant from the usual physics perspective. I.e.
decoherence prevents quantum phenomena from being relevant from the
mechanistic point of view and you are then led to approach the problem
from the point
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
enough for the comp consequences.,
Nope. Bivalence can be accepted as a form
On 14 Feb 2011, at 12:13, 1Z wrote:
Thing that aren't real can't have real properties, but
hypothetical things have hypothetical properties
You talk like if you knew what is real. Do you agree that the
existence of primary matter can only be an hypothesis? A useful
simplifying assumption
On 14 Feb 2011, at 14:52, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I wrote the paper to motivate the problem and show how QM is
relevant even though it is not relevant from the usual physics
perspective. I.e. decoherence prevents quantum phenomena from being
relevant from the mechanistic point of view and
Hi Travis,
Again I thank you for joining the discussion group. We have been missing
someone with quantum field theory knowledge to weigh in on the discussions. I
have been carefully reading and researching the ideas in your paper as they
seem to be strongly related to many of the ideas that
On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
On 2/13/20
On 2/14/2011 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meekermailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wr
On 2/14/2011 2:11 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Umm, I did not mean to upset you personally. I find your ideas to
be very interesting and even elegant, but there is an 800 Pound
Gorilla in the Room that needs to be addressed and it is the nature of
the assumptions that we bring in
On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z wrote:
> Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
> you 7 doesn't exist.
Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't exist, in an
analogous sense? And that consequently any computational
characterisation of the mental is in itself a mere fictio
On Feb 14, 10:16 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2011, at 19:10, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2011, at 23:58, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 6:29 pm
On Feb 14, 10:17 am, "Stephen Paul King"
wrote:
> Allow me to add a comment to this brilliant argument. Following Jason’s
> description of Platonia, Plato’s heaven, it would seem to include all
> possible descriptions of itself and thus is in a way like a set that contains
> all subset
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
> >> you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
> >> enough for the
On Feb 14, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2011, at 12:13, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thing that aren't real can't have real properties, but
> > hypothetical things have hypothetical properties
>
> You talk like if you knew what is real.
I only have to know what real means.
>Do you agree t
2011/2/14 1Z
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > >> Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
> > >> you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical real
On Feb 14, 6:21 pm, David Nyman wrote:
> On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z wrote:
>
> > Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
> > you 7 doesn't exist.
>
> Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't exist, in an
> analogous sense?
I can still have seven eggs in my fridge, a
2011/2/14 1Z
>
>
> On Feb 14, 6:21 pm, David Nyman wrote:
> > On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z wrote:
> >
> > > Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
> > > you 7 doesn't exist.
> >
> > Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't exist, in an
> > analogous sense?
>
> I can s
On Feb 13, 11:29 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is hard to
> decipher to whom I write: Brent, Stathis, maybe others who just barged in?
>
> So I go topical. First: randomness in the mind.
> I am functionally against the term because it wo
On 14 February 2011 19:32, 1Z wrote:
>
> "If you have a physical token running a computation, you have
> a computation. What is eliminated?
But such talk is all a posteriori and hence merely circular. A
priori, if you claim that reality can be reduced to (i.e. actually
consists exclusively of)
Brent:
I looked up "random:definition" in Google - lots of "anything goes" - "hap
hazardous".
I was reluctant, because in my mother tongue there is no equivalent of
'random', we say
the German "exbeliebig" variation - "whatever you LIKE". (tetszoeleges,
akarmilyen).
Most advanced countries use 'ran
David,
I was laughing all the way from the computer that '7 does not exist'. And
yes, it does not.
Do qualia exist without the substrate they serve for as qualia?
It goes into our deeper thought to identify 'existing' -
I am willing to go as far as "if our mind handles it, 'it' DOES exist"
so the
On 14 February 2011 20:46, John Mikes wrote:
> I asked several times: "what are numbers?" without getting a reasonable
> reply.
> Sometimes I really like 1Z's twists.
That may be, but I would also like to see if we can get things
untwisted. I'm not peddling any theory of my own here, I'm just
t
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2011
On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, David Nyman wrote:
> On 14 February 2011 19:32, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > "If you have a physical token running a computation, you have
> > a computation. What is eliminated?
>
> But such talk is all a posteriori and hence merely circular.
That the aposteriori is uniformly circul
On Feb 14, 11:08 pm, David Nyman wrote:
> On 14 February 2011 20:46, John Mikes wrote:
>
> > I asked several times: "what are numbers?" without getting a reasonable
> > reply.
> > Sometimes I really like 1Z's twists.
>
> That may be, but I would also like to see if we can get things
> untwisted
On 2/14/2011 11:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Programs are not written with physical instantiation in mind... even
if eventually you run it.
Really? Did people write programs before computers were invented?
What is important is the computation which doesn't care about the
physical instantiat
On Feb 15, 12:12 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1
On Jan 31, 2:31 am, "Stephen Paul King" wrote:
> Hi 1Z,
>
> I would agree with you but we are not considering an FAPP rule of thumb
> for everyday situations, we are considering ontological questions. If our
> conjectures and assumptions are contraindicated by experimental evidence,
> should
On Feb 1, 12:41 am, David Shipman wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:04 am, "Stephen Paul King" wrote:
>
> > > Dear Bruno and Friends,
>
> >> While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
> >> here and not hidden variable theories, the fact that it
> >> has
On 2/14/2011 5:03 PM, 1Z wrote:
This isn't true, is it?
>
> So we have two particles (A and B) that are entangled.
>
> Entanglement is never destroyed, it is only obscured by subsequent
> interactions with the environment.
>
> Particle A goes zooming off into outer space.
>
> 10 years later,
43 matches
Mail list logo
