Re: To observe is to......EC
Le 10-nov.-06, à 05:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda conversion. Why do you want use the lambda calculus if you don't want use its jargon? The advantage of using some very well known formalism (like LAMBDA, or the combinators) is that you can directly refer to well known theorem in the literature. Of course you have too familiarize yourself with a bit of technical jargon, but lambda calculus is a technical matter, so this was expectable. Perhaps you could use a popular functional programming language like LISP, before moving to the more technical lambda? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously believing x and not-x. Seems like faith to me - belief without or contrary to evidence. What is the x you refer to? There is a subtle difference. It is possible to have faith in something stupid and still be consistent. For example, I could say that I have faith that God will answer my prayers regardless of whether he has ever answered any prayers before in the history of the world. However, I think most religious people would say that they have faith that God will answer their prayers because that it what God does and has done in the past. In so saying, they are making an empirically verifiable claim, at least in theory. They can be invited to come up with a test to support their belief, which can be as stringent as they like; for example, they might allow only historical analysis because God would not comply with any experiment designed to test him. I suspect that no such test would have any impact on their beliefs because at bottom they are just based on blind faith, but given that they do not volunteer this to begin with, it shows them up as inconsistent and hypocritical. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Johnathan Corgan writes: That's because for hundreds, if not thousands, of years their theologians have had to explain why their God is invisible, unnoticable, incompehensible, and undetectable. So a null experimental outcome, like the recent studies of the efficacy of healing prayer, is ho-hum. For a rather lengthy, straight-faced treatment of intercessory prayer and victims of amputation: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm Great article! I initially thought that it was written by some poor, honest Christian genuinely struggling with the logical consequences of his beliefs. But then such a person would quickly either fall back on blind faith or reject his beliefs as false, so there can't be many around. On the other hand, I once spoke to someone who claimed he saw God miraculously fill a cavity in a tooth with amalgam while the faithful were invited to observe with little flashlights, so I guess someone will say that God *does* heal amputees. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: To observe is to......EC
Le 10-nov.-06, ࠰5:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a 飲it : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda conversion. Why do you want use the lambda calculus if you don't want use its jargon? It's OK bruno! I only meant I struggle, not that I was not going to use it! I would be silly not to use a well established formalism, as you say. I have so many computer languages wasting space in my poor brain I have trouble squeezing yet another syntax in there and getting it to flow nicely. :-) Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 00:30 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm Great article! I initially thought that it was written by some poor, honest Christian genuinely struggling with the logical consequences of his beliefs. But then such a person would quickly either fall back on blind faith or reject his beliefs as false, so there can't be many around. One thing that stands out about this author is his even-handed, non-strident walk through of his argument, taking claims regarding prayer and statements in the Christian bible at face value. There is no politicizing, sarcasm, or innuendo. It's almost as if he very strongly wants these claims to be true but is forced to conclude they are not through irrefutable logic. We certainly could use more people this eloquent in their presentation! -Johnathan --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue against it. I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at all. If that is antiplatonism, it would help me if you could explain what is antiplatonism, or better what could it mean that the numbers don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying they does not exist at all ??? It means they don't non-physically exist either. Mathematical claims about existence can be true of false, but so can fictional claims like Harry Potter exists in Middle Earth Even Licorne exists in some sense, without referent in the physical world, but with referent (meaning) in some fantasy worlds? Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy worlds, -- Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds. Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only sense (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions aspects of meaning, but not every term has both. Sense is internal to langauge, it a relationship between a word/concept and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is like defining a word by pointing and saying it is one of those. But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts. Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary. Why could numbers not exist in some similar sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled recently). Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world is a cumbersome way of saying they don't literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally kick back. They don't interact causally with my reality. I am just trying to understand what you say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously believing x and not-x. Seems like faith to me - belief without or contrary to evidence. What is the x you refer to? There is a subtle difference. It is possible to have faith in something stupid and still be consistent. For example, I could say that I have faith that God will answer my prayers regardless of whether he has ever answered any prayers before in the history of the world. However, I think most religious people would say that they have faith that God will answer their prayers because that it what God does and has done in the past. In so saying, they are making an empirically verifiable claim, at least in theory. They can be invited to come up with a test to support their belief, which can be as stringent as they like; for example, they might allow only historical analysis because God would not comply with any experiment designed to test him. I suspect that no such test would have any impact on their beliefs because at bottom they are just based on blind faith, but given that they do not volunteer this to begin with, it shows them up as inconsistent and hypocritical. Stathis Papaioannou OK. But I'd say that in fact almost no one believes something without any evidence, i.e. on *blind* faith. Religious faith is usually belief based on *selected* evidence; it is faith because it is contrary to the total evidence. Bruno seems to use faith somewhat differently: to mean what I would call a working hypothesis. Brent Meeker This gets us to the question that has been pondered here before, a question that is more appropriate to the general metaphysical/epistemological thoughts of this List: What does it mean to believe something? I'd say that you can't really know if you or someone else really believes something unless you/they act on it. An act could simply be investing some of our precious limited time to look at its consequences. I'd say that for that non-trivial period of time in your life, you had at least somewhat of a belief in it. It is not a trivial thing to use up some of your life doing something (at least in my worldview). I think this shows how Bruno's belief can be brought equal in essence (if not necessarily the quantity of investment) to any other belief. Evidence is relative, and I think is important in practical terms, but it is not essential to the definition of belief. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue against it. I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at all. If that is antiplatonism, it would help me if you could explain what is antiplatonism, or better what could it mean that the numbers don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying they does not exist at all ??? It means they don't non-physically exist either. Mathematical claims about existence can be true of false, but so can fictional claims like Harry Potter exists in Middle Earth Even Licorne exists in some sense, without referent in the physical world, but with referent (meaning) in some fantasy worlds? Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy worlds, -- Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds. Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only sense (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions aspects of meaning, but not every term has both. Sense is internal to langauge, it a relationship between a word/concept and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is like defining a word by pointing and saying it is one of those. But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts. Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary. Why could numbers not exist in some similar sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled recently). Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world is a cumbersome way of saying they don't literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally kick back. They don't interact causally with my reality. What about: If (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat. In all possible worlds where I always keep my promises, I will not eat my hat. This is causally a result of the fact that (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number. Tom I think a clue is in the fact that you picked (2^32582657 -1) instead of 7. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue against it. I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at all. If that is antiplatonism, it would help me if you could explain what is antiplatonism, or better what could it mean that the numbers don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying they does not exist at all ??? It means they don't non-physically exist either. Mathematical claims about existence can be true of false, but so can fictional claims like Harry Potter exists in Middle Earth Even Licorne exists in some sense, without referent in the physical world, but with referent (meaning) in some fantasy worlds? Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy worlds, -- Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds. Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only sense (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions aspects of meaning, but not every term has both. Sense is internal to langauge, it a relationship between a word/concept and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is like defining a word by pointing and saying it is one of those. But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts. Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary. Why could numbers not exist in some similar sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled recently). Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world is a cumbersome way of saying they don't literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally kick back. They don't interact causally with my reality. What about: If (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat. In all possible worlds where I always keep my promises, I will not eat my hat. This is causally a result of the fact that (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number. Tom I think a clue is in the fact that you picked (2^32582657 -1) instead of 7. Brent Meeker OK. I'll go with 7. Compare If 7 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat. vs. If this table holds up my coffee cup, I will not eat my hat. Signed, Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Peter Jones writes: Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded their brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you can get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs process). Why? Plato's heaven is full of mathematical process, which looks non dynamical from outside, like a block universe, but can be dynamical from inside. If you can show that subjective experience exists in Platonia, you can use that to show that some things will seem dynamical. If you can show that there a dynamic processes in Platonia, you can use that to show there are running computations and therefore minds, and therefore experiences. But can you do both without circularity? That subjective experience exists in Platonia is shown by Maudlin-type arguments, although admittedly there are several other ways around this such as rejecting computationalism. That dynamic processes can occur in the absence of traditional linear time is less problematic. You haven't come up with a test that would tell me whether I am living in a properly implemented block universe or a linear universe, and I think it is impossible in principle to come up with such a test. That does not mean we are living in a block universe, but it does mean we would not know it if we were. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue against it. I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at all. If that is antiplatonism, it would help me if you could explain what is antiplatonism, or better what could it mean that the numbers don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying they does not exist at all ??? It means they don't non-physically exist either. Mathematical claims about existence can be true of false, but so can fictional claims like Harry Potter exists in Middle Earth Even Licorne exists in some sense, without referent in the physical world, but with referent (meaning) in some fantasy worlds? Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy worlds, -- Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds. Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only sense (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions aspects of meaning, but not every term has both. Sense is internal to langauge, it a relationship between a word/concept and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is like defining a word by pointing and saying it is one of those. But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts. Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary. Why could numbers not exist in some similar sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled recently). Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world is a cumbersome way of saying they don't literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally kick back. They don't interact causally with my reality. What about: If (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat. In all possible worlds where I always keep my promises, I will not eat my hat. This is causally a result of the fact that (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number. No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 is not a prime number. Causality , as opposed to material implication, requires contingency. So reality requires contingency. This is getting circular. Tom I am just trying to understand what you say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue against it. I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at all. If that is antiplatonism, it would help me if you could explain what is antiplatonism, or better what could it mean that the numbers don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying they does not exist at all ??? It means they don't non-physically exist either. Mathematical claims about existence can be true of false, but so can fictional claims like Harry Potter exists in Middle Earth Even Licorne exists in some sense, without referent in the physical world, but with referent (meaning) in some fantasy worlds? Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy worlds, -- Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds. Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only sense (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions aspects of meaning, but not every term has both. Sense is internal to langauge, it a relationship between a word/concept and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is like defining a word by pointing and saying it is one of those. But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts. Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary. Why could numbers not exist in some similar sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled recently). Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world is a cumbersome way of saying they don't literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally kick back. They don't interact causally with my reality. What about: If (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat. In all possible worlds where I always keep my promises, I will not eat my hat. This is causally a result of the fact that (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number. Tom I think a clue is in the fact that you picked (2^32582657 -1) instead of 7. Brent Meeker OK. I'll go with 7. Compare If 7 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/mat-imp.htm http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
