Interesting! This reminds me of the old standby example of being able
to find any sequence of digits in the digits of pi, and therefore being
able to find whole digital "recordings" of "Gone With The Wind" or anything you
desire, including your-whole-life-as-you-desire-it-to-be, if you searc
Why is it that we talk about caring and preference, pleasure and pain,
and "proper behavior", when it comes to trying to figure out the basic
nature of reality? (I've noticed that a lot of the thought experiments
on this list feature pleasure or pain decision making.) For me this is
a rhetori
peterdjones wrote:
> Georges Quenot wrote:
>
>> peterdjones wrote:
>>> Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> peterdjones wrote:
>
It is just the idea that there could be no difference between
mathematical existence and physical existence.
>>>
Hi,
Le Jeudi 30 Mars 2006 20:22, 1Z a écrit :
> Georges Quenot wrote:
> > it would be a
> > "mathematical monism" in which one and only one particulat
> > "mathematical object" would exist. This seems logically
> > difficult and then: why just this one?
>
> Why only mathematical objects and not a
Georges Quenot wrote:
> peterdjones wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >> peterdjones wrote:
> >>> Georges Quénot wrote:
> peterdjones wrote:
> >> It is just the idea that there could be no difference between
> >> mathematical existence and physical existence.
> >
> > Then why do we use
Russell Standish wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:37:06PM -0800, 1Z wrote:
> >
> > I mean that you do not fulfil the promise of the first sentence:
> > "that a description logically capable of observing itself is
> > enough to bootstrap ITSELF into existence."
> >
> ...
>
> >
> > > Therefore
John M wrote:
> With the Q#3 I would ask "who is I?" Mathematically of> course. Otherwise we
> don't know.
Really ?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group,
*Marc dances a jig with delight and claps Bruno on the back*
A deliciously interesting post Bruno my dear fellow, a deliciously
interesting post! I'd be very interested to see anything else you have
on the Riemann Hypothesis and it's possible connection to a 'theory of
everything'.
There were t
I take the view that physical existence is in some sense a 'part' of
mathematics. However physical properties by themselves aren't
mathematical properties. Which properties do we call 'physical'?
There appear to be three main classes of properties that we interpret
as 'physical': *spatial* prop
9 matches
Mail list logo
