[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
>>>
>>>A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not
Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> >> What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
> >> real and others abstract...
> >
> > A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
> > to explain the w
Brent Meeker wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...
> > Errmm..but if the universe is the set of all real
> > things, then they all share the "property" of realness.
> > Perhaps you mean: what is the difference between real
> > things and unreal things? Well, the difference is that
> > real thin
Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
> > mathematical,
>
> I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
> you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
> respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> Errmm..but if the universe is the set of all real
> things, then they all share the "property" of realness.
> Perhaps you mean: what is the difference between real
> things and unreal things? Well, the difference is that
> real things have properties and unreal thing
John M wrote:
>
> [...]
> Don't be a sourpus, I was not attacking YOU.
Well. I do not know exactly why I felt concerned.
I probably missed your point.
> [...]
> By George! (not Georges) don't you imply such things
> into my mind after my decade under nazis and two under
> commis, now 3+ in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
> mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
adopt it either.
But can y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Georges Quenot wrote:
>>>
That "[The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
other mathematical objects which are only abstract." is what
I called a dualist view.
>>> Dualism says there ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Hal Finney" wrote:> The first is that numbers are
really far more complex than they seem.> When we think of numbers, we
tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7.> But they are not really
typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to> the integers,
the
--- Georges Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John M a écrit :
> >
> > to more recent posts:
> >
> > 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
>
> I am not sure to understand what you mean by "REAL"
> hereSKIP...
Arguments are just arguments.
(See my post to Bruno: I don't h
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 17-mars-06, à 13:42, John M a écrit :
>
> >
> > to more recent posts:
> >
> > 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
> >(Our stupidity may allow also all the bad things
> >that "happen".)
>
> There is no REAL argument against
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 17-mars-06, à 01:31, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>
>>>Hmmm... okay, so last questions what is an abstract thing ? what does
>>>it means
>>>to be abstract ? what render a thing real ? what does it means for it
>>>to be
>>>real ? what does it means to be real ?
>>
>>If
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> To brent... (sorry I do not have the mail in my mailbox to reply to it).
>
> So reality is what kicks back... Ok, but that was not the question (really),
> I
> want to know what distinction you do between abstract thing and real thing ?
>
> You would say "real things a
--- Hal Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John M writes:
> > 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
>
> Let me express how solipsism can be analyzed in the
> model where physical
> reality is part of mathematical reality.
>
> Let us adopt Bruno's UDA perspective: the Universal
John M writes:
> 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
Let me express how solipsism can be analyzed in the model where physical
reality is part of mathematical reality.
Let us adopt Bruno's UDA perspective: the Universal Dovetailer (UD)
is an abstract machine that runs all possible co
Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quenot wrote:
> >> Norman Samish wrote:
> >
> >>> Where could the executive program have come from? Perhaps one could call
> >>> it "God." I can think of no possibility other than "It was always
> >>> there,"
> >>> and eternal
Le 17-mars-06, à 13:42, John M a écrit :
>
> to more recent posts:
>
> 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
> stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
> "happen".)
There is no REAL argument against solipsism. Nevertheless it is false,
imo.
So solipsism is false but
Le 17-mars-06, à 06:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Yes, I was assuming that the descriptions "lose information", or generalize, just as "mammal" is a generalization, and just as Bruno's duplication loses information. Otherwise, I would call it a re-representation of *ALL* the details of somethi
"Hal Finney" wrote:
> The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem.
> When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7.
> But they are not really typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to
> the integers, the information content of the "ave
Le 17-mars-06, à 06:47, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal writes:
>
>> Le 11-mars-06, à 10:59, Georges Quénot wrote (to John):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I presented
>>> fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is required
>>> to adhere to suc
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> This means you miss the point. The only assumption is "comp" by which I
> mean the "yes doctor" hypothesis together with Church's thesis and a
> minimal amount of arithmetical realism (AR: just the idea that
> elementary arithmetical truth is independent of me, you ...This
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 17-mars-06, à 00:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> > Dualism says there are two really existing realms or substances.
>
> This is Descartes' dualism between mind and body.
>
> > Saying the physical realm is concrete and real and the mathematical
> > realm is abstract
Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quenot wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Georges wrote:
> > - The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
> This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathemat
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 16-mars-06, à 22:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> > Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or
> > a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the
> > discussion) concept? I take them as mathematical concepts, so that
>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 16-mars-06, à 23:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> > is it ? we might be able to ground meaning in causal interactions,
> > for instance, but can we ground causal interactions in the
> > timeless world of maths ?
>
> I think Hal Finney just gave a nice answer through
Le 16-mars-06, à 23:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> is it ? we might be able to ground meaning in causal interactions,
> for instance, but can we ground causal interactions in the
> timeless world of maths ?
I think Hal Finney just gave a nice answer through the notion of block
universe.
I d
John M wrote:
>
> to more recent posts:
>
> 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
> stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
> "happen".)
>
> 2. Is reasonable or rational thinking exclusive for
> ONLY those, who live in a 'numbers' obsession?
> or is it an elitist heaug
Le 16-mars-06, à 22:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or
> a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the
> discussion) concept? I take them as mathematical concepts, so that
> speculating about isomorphisms
John M a écrit :
>
> to more recent posts:
>
> 1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
I am not sure to understand what you mean by "REAL" here.
There are arguments against solipsism. Wittgenstein for
instance produced some. None of them is lilkey to be
decisive. They may work with som
--- Stathis Papaioannou
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal writes:
> >
> >Le 11-mars-06, à 10:59, Georges Quénot wrote (to
> John):
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I
> presented
> > > fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is
> required
> > > to adhe
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
"happen".)
2. Is reasonable or rational thinking exclusive for
ONLY those, who live in a 'numbers' obsession?
or is it an elitist heaughtiness to look down to all,
who do
Le 17-mars-06, à 01:31, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>> Hmmm... okay, so last questions what is an abstract thing ? what does
>> it means
>> to be abstract ? what render a thing real ? what does it means for it
>> to be
>> real ? what does it means to be real ?
>
> If you kick it, it kicks back.
>
Le 17-mars-06, à 00:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> The argument does not show the "the
> physical universe" can only emerge on an infinity of "overlapping
> computations", as such. It might show this given a series of
> assumptions-- that we are nothing but hardwareless computations,
> that t
To brent... (sorry I do not have the mail in my mailbox to reply to it).
So reality is what kicks back... Ok, but that was not the question (really), I
want to know what distinction you do between abstract thing and real thing ?
You would say "real things are things when throw at you, hurt you
Le 17-mars-06, à 00:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Dualism says there are two really existing realms or substances.
This is Descartes' dualism between mind and body.
> Saying the physical realm is concrete and real and the mathematical
> realm is abstract and unreal is not dualism.
Well,
Hi Brent,
This is quite amazing! I got only "nothing" there (due to the fact that ESCRIBE does no more work I guess).
The step by step presentation to Joel Dobrzelewski
seems to be here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg01274.html
See also for the sequel:
http://grou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Georges Quenot wrote:
>> Norman Samish wrote:
>
>>> Where could the executive program have come from? Perhaps one could call
>>> it "God." I can think of no possibility other than "It was always there,"
>>> and eternal existence is a concept I can't imagine. Are
37 matches
Mail list logo
