More on White Rabbits.
Here is a thought experiment which attempts to prove the non existence of
White Rabbits and of Black Rabbits.
Definitions:
1) White Rabbits: phenomena that we cannot understand. Their existence
indicates that the set of physical phenomena is larger than the set of ideas
2
Juergen:
> I think we may not ignore infinities for quite pragmatic,
> non-esoteric reasons. Many believe the history of our own universe
> will be infinite - certainly there is no evidence against this
> possibility. Also, any finite never-halting program for a virtual
> reality corresponds to a
Joel wrote:
>What is the mind-body problem?
The formulations are as numerous than the philosophical systems.
For a materialist the problem is to explain what are the necessary
and sufficient conditions for having the feeling of pain in a leg.
For an idealist the problem is to explain what are
Bruno Marchal:
> 1) The Schmidhuber-Ruhl-Dobrzelewski-... approaches (SRD)
> 2) The other approaches, which take into account the fact that we have
> not yet solved the mind body problem.
Von Weizsaecker said, long time ago, that
"Nature is earlier than man.
But man is earlier than na
Well put Juergen. The question arose as to whether our universe could be
or continous. Don't the computable numbers form a continuum; hence even
restricting the universe to one we can describe would still allow it to be
continuous?
Brent Meeker
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> T
I'm sorry Bruno, I think I'm getting confused by the terminology.
What is the mind-body problem?
What does "first person" and "third person" mean?
Joel
> From: "Joel Dobrzelewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Countable vs Continuous
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:41:13 -0400
>
> Juergen:
> > There is the rather harmless kind: the countable one. And some say
> > there is another kind, a strange one, the one associated with the
> > uncountable c
Joel wrote:
>What is weird from one perspective is not too weird in another. Some might
>thing it's strange, and others might not.
I agree. So what I say is that we must explain why the "world" seems to
*remain* normal to us.
Suppose you have a theory of elementary particles, and that your th
Marchal:
> The white rabbits we talk about own waistcoat-pockets. This is
> supposed to be uncommon in *realities* ... Well that is what we try
> to show.
Ahhh... I see now. Thank you!
> Everything theories (computationalist or not) must explain the
> relative rarity of relatively (to here and
Joel wrote (in part):
>By the way... I'm curious why we are using the example of "white"
>rabbits. White rabbits are quite common in the laboratory. Is that
>why we use them as an example? Because they are uncommon in nature?
Look at:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2636.html
The wh
Juergen:
> There is the rather harmless kind: the countable one. And some say
> there is another kind, a strange one, the one associated with the
> uncountable continuum, the one whose very existence many deny.
>
> Do not lump them together.
Yes, I can see how this distinction might be useful in
George:
> My position, is that there are no separations between worlds.
> There is only one single huge world, the plenitude and we live in
> it. The plenitude is choke full of white rabbits. In fact most of
> it is white rabbit stuff.
I very much agree.
> The reason we don't see them is t
Fred:
> Your cellular automaton demos look pretty neat, but how can you
> tell if they are conscious or self-aware? Do two of these interact
> in a social manner?
Well, in the 3D version there must exist (if these automata are indeed
minimal) configurations that look just like you and me disc
There has been some confusion regarding the various kinds of infinity.
There is the rather harmless kind: the countable one. And some say there
is another kind, a strange one, the one associated with the uncountable
continuum, the one whose very existence many deny.
Do not lump them together.
T
14 matches
Mail list logo
