On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Jun 2015, at 14:58, Terren Suydam
On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic
per se, and consequently nothing can 'emerge' from
Review of Nick Bostrom's _Superintelligence_, Oxford University Press, 2014
by somebody named Rod:
we need to be investing much more in figuring out whether developing AI
is a good idea.
A waste of time, good idea or bad its going to happen it's just a question
of when.
We may need to put
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a
mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion
of primitive matter for making more real some computations in place of others. It
A Coo-Coo Fatwa
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 6, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Pigeons offend Islam
ISIS recently banned pigeon breeding because when the birds fly overhead they
expose their
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the
strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that position is proved
to be nonsense.
Comp is just I am a digitalizable
On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent)
Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified.
Plato'sTheaetetusdialogue
defines knowledge as true belief. I think that's a deficiency in modal
logic
insofar as it's supposed to
On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block
universe certain structure was necessary --
Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in the sense that all you
need
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important
because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the numbers, but that is not the case for
analysis, real numbers,
The business as usual position seemingly seeks to ignore this kind of data.
After all it is rather inconvenient for the position that they hold that:
either no warming is going on; or else all measured warming is just the result
of some hypothetical mysterious natural cycle that has little to
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam wrote:
OK, so given a certain interpretation, some
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know
that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also be
conscious. But that doesn't mean that only computations can be conscious,
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician.
This is
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 07:18:19PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In a Newtonian world physics is deterministic
Yes, but deterministic is not the same as predictable.
so there is an exact solution:
That doesn't necessarily
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lizj...@gmail.com'); wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know
that brains can be conscious, and we assume
A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus
Translation for anyone interested in listening to he Quran:
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/
Samiya
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will
experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe,
which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But
of course it does, even though the whole 4D structure is already there in
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(And what's wrong with sneaked ?)
I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic
is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we
cannot use a notion of primitive
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of
On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or
whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something that was
invented, and could equally well have been invented differently,
This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one: You can't see the
genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You have to poke them to get them
even expose their genitals.
Brent
On 6/8/2015 4:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Support for this is (ahem) dropping...
On 9 June
On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(And what's wrong with sneaked ?)
I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have
sneaked into the language:
On 6/8/2015 7:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
(And what's wrong with sneaked ?)
I was trying to be faintly
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is
important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of
On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is
a
mathematical fact that nobody doubt
Support for this is (ahem) dropping...
On 9 June 2015 at 07:35, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
A Coo-Coo Fatwa
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 6,
On Monday, June 8, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block universe
certain structure was necessary --
Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in
LizR wrote:
What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers
will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block
universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to
experience time. But of course it does, even though the whole 4D
structure is
On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC
(or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it
something
On 08 Jun 2015, at 04:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set
can be defined in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T
On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent)
Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato's
Theaetetus dialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think
that's a deficiency in modal logic insofar as it's supposed to
formalize good informal reasoning. But I can see
On 08 Jun 2015, at 01:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/7/2015 3:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you
On 08 Jun 2015, at 04:31, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
everyone agrees that 2+2=4 by definition, it's not so clear that
arithmetic objects exist.
If 2+2=4 exists then 2+2=5 does too.
2+2 is true. That's all.
Platonia may contain all
On 08 Jun 2015, at 00:00, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that
mathematics is incapable
On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
You started with Tegmark's idea that time and events are emergent from an
underlying timeless mathematical structure. My point was that in order for
time to emerge from a block universe certain structure was necessary --
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 6 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
This is true if events have an existence apart from maths.
However, that is still being debated.
LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic
per se, and consequently nothing can 'emerge' from arithmetic, since
emergence is a temporal
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jun 2015, at 14:58, Terren Suydam wrote:
It would be like saying that bats' echolocation
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block universe
certain structure was necessary --
Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in the sense that all you need
is the emulation of a brain of a person
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be
defined in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T MAKE A COMPUTATION WITH A DEFINITION!
I can do
43 matches
Mail list logo
