Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Jones writes:
...
>>> If you died today and just by accident a possible next
>>> moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the
>>> future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the
>>> future.
>
Peter Jones writes:
> > > The other issue matter is able to explain as a result of having no
> > > properties of its own is the issue of change and time. For change to be
> > > distinguishable from mere succession, it must be change in something.
> > > It could be a contingent natural law th
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > 1Z wrote:
> >> Tom Caylor wrote:
> >>> 1Z wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > David and 1Z:
> >
> > How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
> > than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed t
Tom Caylor wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
>> Tom Caylor wrote:
>>> 1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
> David and 1Z:
>
> How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
> than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
> successively approach the accu
1Z wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > 1Z wrote:
> > > Tom Caylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David and 1Z:
> > > >
> > > > How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
> > > > than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
> > > > successively approach the accura
Bruno:
Your individual 'believing' the invisible horses (excellent parable) -
when learned physics etc., will not 'deny' even the necessity of those
invisible horses: he will "EXPLAIN" and CALCULATE what they are in his
belief-system of the invisible horses.
That is exactly what the developing phy
Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 21:00, 1Z a écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 19:25, 1Z a écrit :
> > > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit :
> > > > > I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a
> > > >
Tom Caylor wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > Tom Caylor wrote:
> > >
> > > David and 1Z:
> > >
> > > How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
> > > than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
> > > successively approach the accuracies needed for the collisi
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 19:25, 1Z a écrit :
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit :
> > > > I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a mathematical
> > > > reality, because there are no random gaps in
Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 19:25, 1Z a écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit :
> > > I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a mathematical
> > > reality, because there are no random gaps in Platonia. Since all
> > > mathematical
1Z wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> >
> > David and 1Z:
> >
> > How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
> > than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
> > successively approach the accuracies needed for the collisions in the
> > linear accelerator)
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit :
> >
> > I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a mathematical
> > reality, because there are no random gaps in Platonia. Since all
> > mathematical
> > structures are exemplified, the structure corresp
Hi,
Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit :
>
> I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a mathematical
> reality, because there are no random gaps in Platonia. Since all
> mathematical
> structures are exemplified, the structure corresponging to (me up till
> 1 second ago)
>
Tom Caylor wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by
> > > >> Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argu
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> In an excellent and clear post Peter Jones writes:
>
> > Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
> > may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
> > dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- wh
1Z wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > >
> > >> Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by
> > >> Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by:
> > >>
> > >> Computationali
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by
> >> Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by:
> >>
> >> Computationalism entails COMP.
> >
> > Brun
Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by
>> Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by:
>>
>> Computationalism entails COMP.
>
> Bruno, could you distinguish between your rema
Le 23-oct.-06, à 18:52, David Nyman a écrit :
> Bruno, I think it's the Beta version that's intermittently losing posts
> - Colin lost one, and I've lost two. I've posted a topic to this effect
> for the list. You may wish to revert to the old version.
That does not work either but apparently
Colin Hales wrote:
> When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC
> string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is
> meaningless EC can't 'construct/refresh' you beyond the rate it's () operate
> at. There's nothing to travel in anything an
20 matches
Mail list logo
