Le 27-juil.-06, à 03:21, David Nyman a écrit :
Mmmmhh This sounds a little bit too much idealist for me. Numbers
exist with some logic-mathematical priority, and then self-intimacy
should emerge from many complex relations among numbers. Also, the
many
universes (both with comp and/or
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
There is a very impoertant difference between computations do
not require a physical basis and computations do not
require any *particular* physical basis (ie computations can be
physical
implemented by a wide
Please see after your remark/question at the end
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument
Le 28-juil.-06, à 02:52, John M a écrit :
Then again is the 'as -
Thanks, Colin,
I feel we also agree in your last sentence statement, however I could not
decide whether abstraction is reductionist model forming or a
generalization into wider horizons? Patterns - I feel - are IMO definitely
reductive.
that scale-game (40-50 orders of m. down) seems to me
Russell Standish writes, regarding http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607227 :
Thanks for giving a digested explanation of the argument. This paper
was discussed briefly on A-Void a few weeks ago, but I must admit to
not following the argument too well, nor RTFA.
My comment on the observer
Thanks, Colin,
I feel we also agree in your last sentence statement, however I could
not
decide whether abstraction is reductionist model forming or a
generalization into wider horizons? Patterns - I feel - are IMO
definitely reductive.
Abstraction I would characterise as a mapping into a
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
The constraints (a) and (b) you mention are ad hoc and an unnecessary
complication. Suppose Klingon
computers change their internal code every clock cycle according to the
well-documented radioactive
decay pattern of a sacred stone 2000 years ago. If
7 matches
Mail list logo
