On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.05.2012 20:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let us take terms like information, computation, etc. Are they
mental or mathematical?
Information is vague, and can be both.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 08:50:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/23/2012 4:53 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/23/2012 1:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
The definition is a somewhat wordy, but essentially technically
correct, form of the standard definition of a basis in Linear Algebra.
What is
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)).
The IF ... THEN used in math is generally of that type.
I use a = b for from a I can derive b, in the theory I
On 24 May 2012, at 09:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)).
The IF ... THEN used in math is generally of that type.
I use
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, alexalex alexmka...@yahoo.com wrote:
Taking the qunatum immortality argument as a fact what do you think
about the following implication?
If you'll be conscious only in those universes where you'll keep on
living then most surely you'll watch all your
On May 23, 1:54 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
On May 23, 10:05 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
to sleep under a bush tonight.
Only because of how we have defined
On 5/24/2012 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2012, at 09:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is
a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)).
The IF ... THEN
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two possible
answers.
Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do.
And if you were constructed
On May 24, 4:27 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two possible
answers.
My doing the
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My understanding is that you don't approve of this sort of certain as
you
On 5/24/2012 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My understanding is that
On May 24, 7:55 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My
On May 24, 9:54 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Now we (except for Craig) recognize that these properties can be found in
machines, like chess players or AI with learning. They can be either
probabilistic (in
the inherent sense by having QM random number generators) or deterministic
On 5/24/2012 9:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 24, 9:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Now we (except for Craig) recognize that these properties can be found in
machines, like chess players or AI with learning. They can be either
probabilistic (in
the inherent sense by having QM
On 5/25/12, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the brain must be either probabilistic or
deterministic.
It doesn't matter what the brain's limitations are. It seems to me
that the psyche uses the brain like a tool. The brain is a 3-D shadow
of an 8-D temporal phenomena.
16 matches
Mail list logo
