On 26.05.2012 21:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a = Ba is a valid rule for all logic having a Kripke
semantics. Why? Because it means that a is supposed to be valid (for
example you have already prove it), so a, like any theorem, will be
true in all worlds, so a will be
On May 26, 1:42 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I nominate does not 'happen for a reason'
Then what you nominate is as random as it is idiotic. Idiots do things for
no reason, smart people do things for reasons.
On 27 May 2012, at 00:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 9:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable
things would be true of reality.
Just to be clear, I didn't write 1. above. But I did write 2. below.
Ah OK. Sorry. I
On 27 May 2012, at 01:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt:
Velmans introduces perceptual projection but this remains as the Hard
Problem in his book, how exactly perceptual projection happens-Evgenii
Rudnyi
I conjecture that the discrete nonphysical particles of compactified space,
the so-called Calabi-Yau Manifolds of string theory, have perceptual
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a = Ba is a valid rule for all logic having a Kripke
semantics. Why? Because it means that a is supposed to be valid (for
example you have already prove it), so a, like any
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:42:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a = Ba is a valid rule for all logic having a Kripke
semantics. Why? Because it means that a is supposed to be valid (for
example you have already prove it), so a, like any
On 27 May 2012, at 09:46, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 21:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be
On Sun, May 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Now you claim not to understand either words will or free? How could you
know whether it's circular or not when you claim not to understand either
term? When that power to decide is taken away by a cage, what has been
lost? How
On May 27, 1:44 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Now you claim not to understand either words will or free? How could you
know whether it's circular or not when you claim not to understand either
term? When that
On 5/27/2012 5:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Bruno said, Provable is always relative to some axioms and rules of inference. It
is quite independent of true of reality. Which is why I'm highly suspicious of
ideas like deriving all of reality from arithmetic, which we know only from axioms
On 5/27/2012 2:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
This does seem to imply an interesting situation where the mind/consciousness of the
observer is in a sense no longer confined to being 'inside the skull but ranging out to
the farthest place where something is percieved. It seems to me that
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 12:15, Russell Standish wrote:
I still don't follow. If I have proved a is true in some world, why
should I infer that it is true in all worlds? What am I missing?
I realize my previous answer might be too
On May 27, 5:45 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/27/2012 2:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
This does seem to imply an interesting situation where the
mind/consciousness of the
observer is in a sense no longer confined to being 'inside the skull but
ranging out to
the
15 matches
Mail list logo
