Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves.' MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'? And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are using these words, I don't think I can go any further. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ I think therefore I am right! - Angelica [Rugrat] Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Mark, Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right', That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but useless proof of the existence of Descartes' first person. It is useless because He knew it before his argument. 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know it or not. Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that even me has a strong belief in the existence of a universe, even in a physical universe. But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is correct, then materialism is false, and that physical universe is neither material nor primitively physical. I am just saying to the computationalist that they have to explain the physical laws, without assuming any physics at the start. It is a technical point. If we are digital machine then we must explain particles and waves from the relation between numbers, knots, and other mathematical object. Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves. In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the universe should be described as ultimately numeric in nature. You are right. Actually if comp is correct, what you are saying here can be justified. I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be expanding away from me at great speed, so that every time I try to follow and respond to something, everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little bit further out of reach! Keep asking. Have you understood the first seven steps of the UD Argument ? Look at my SANE paper. I think this makes available the necessity of the reversal physics/math without technics. Most in this list were already open to the idea that a theory of everything has the shape of a probability calculus on observer moment. Then some of us believe it is a relative measure, and some of us accept the comp hyp which adds many constraints, which is useful for making things more precise, actually even falsifiable in Popper sense. I must go. I am busy this week, but this just means I will be more slow than usual. Keep asking if you are interested. Don't let you abuse by possible jargon ... Just don't let things go out of reach ... (but keep in mind that consciousness/reality questions are deep and complex, so it is normal to be stuck on some post, etc.). Best, Bruno Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Bruno: has anybody ever seen numbers? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery). Where is the universe - good question, but: Has anybody ever seen Other universes? Have we learned or developed (advanced)
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our point of view does the other Universes not exist. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hal: you really believe that anybody could provide responses acceptable for all others? (I did not say understandable) Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his own scientific religion (=scientific belief system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted now (again) Russell or not.] We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM). Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice. John - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi John: Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. Yours Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset. This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person) white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does not reintroduce new one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Searles' Fundamental Error
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our point of view does the other Universes not exist. -- Torgny Tholerus But what is mathematical possibility? Is it the same as logically possible? Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.? Or does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.? 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: Searles' Fundamental Error
Brent Meeker skrev: Torgny Tholerus wrote: Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our point of view does the other Universes not exist. But what is mathematical possibility? Is it the same as logically possible? Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.? Or does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.? Yes, it is the same as logically possible. One simple Universe is the Game of Life, with some starting configuration. This simple Universe exists in the same way as our Universe, even if nobody ever tries this starting configuration. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Searles' Fundamental Error
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Brent Meeker skrev: Torgny Tholerus wrote: Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our point of view does the other Universes not exist. But what is mathematical possibility? Is it the same as logically possible? Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.? Or does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.? Yes, it is the same as logically possible. One simple Universe is the Game of Life, with some starting configuration. This simple Universe exists in the same way as our Universe, even if nobody ever tries this starting configuration. But that doesn't answer the question. Can a thing be both red and green? Is that logically impossible or only nomologically impossible? It seems to me there is a problem with talking about logically possible. I can adopt some axioms including an axiom that says a thing can be any two different colors at the same time and then proceed with logical inferences to derive a lot of theorems and so long as I don't have another axiom that says a thing can only be one color at a time I won't run into an inconsistency. Does that mean it is possible for the a thing to be two different colors at the same time - I don't think so. But the reason I don't think so is an inductive inference about the physical world and the meaning of words by reference to it (as Bruno would say, the absence of white rabbits), not with logic. Also, logically possible is the same as logically consistent (at least under most rules of inference). But except for simple systems you cannot know when a logical system is consistent. I think that's why Bruno builds on arithmetic; because he can ask you to bet it is true and you probably will even though it cannot be proven consistent (internally). If he asked you to bet on metric manifolds over the octonions you might bet the other way. 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: Searles' Fundamental Error
By who's logic? John M - Original Message - From: Torgny Tholerus To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error Brent Meeker skrev: Torgny Tholerus wrote: Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our point of view does the other Universes not exist. But what is mathematical possibility? Is it the same as logically possible? Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.? Or does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.? Yes, it is the same as logically possible. One simple Universe is the Game of Life, with some starting configuration. This simple Universe exists in the same way as our Universe, even if nobody ever tries this starting configuration. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Searles' Fundamental Error
Mark: fascinating. I like to ask such stupid questions myself. On my question 'what is consciousness' the best answer I got was: everybody knows it from a prof-fessional. (Yes, but everybody knows it differently). Existence??? I wonder how the honored listers will vote, I would resort to the process (we think) we are in. What process? I can't see it from the inside. With 'physical' I take a more primitive stance: I consider it epistemological over our past history, to put primitive and unsatisfactory experiences (observations?) into position of the premature image we formed about the world in the past (including now). Matter-concept is still an imprtant part of it, even in E~m relations. Sensorial - in it - still has the upper hand over mental. I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the reverse order. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized enough to form an educated guess. * If I combine the two: physical existence (no 'primitive' included, rather implying it to ourselves) I visualize the unrestricted complexity of 'everything' (already known or not) so any teleported remnant of 'us' sounds impossible without 'all' of the combined ingredients we are part of. * I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the churnings here and now and a BIG complexity-view as a spaceless-timeless multiverse BY the 'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I allow a 'small' complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this I violate my scepticism against the Big Bang fable - and consider our universe from BB to dissipation, the entire history, as evolution. I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions. I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. John M and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???) - Original Message - From: Mark Peaty To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves.' MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'? And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are using these words, I don't think I can go any further. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ I think therefore I am right! - Angelica [Rugrat] Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Mark, Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right', That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but useless proof of the existence of Descartes' first person. It is useless because He knew it before his argument. 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know it or not. Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that even me has a strong belief in the existence of a universe, even in a physical universe. But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is correct, then materialism is false, and that physical universe is neither material nor primitively physical. I am just saying to the computationalist that they have to explain the physical laws, without assuming any physics at the start. It is a technical point. If we are digital machine then we must explain particles and waves from the relation between numbers, knots, and other mathematical object. Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves. In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world,
Re: The Meaning of Life
And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I know' a right position from a wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate... On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating WHAT days they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own rites. Sometimes I start an argument about a different (questionable?) belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty way. I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John, Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500 Stathiws, no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system. BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th beatitude). To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly unique. We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John, You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis Papaioannou Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another? John M --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:10:34PM -0500, John M wrote: I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. John M My take on physical and existence. Physical: that which kicks back in the Samuel Johnson sense. It doesn't rule out idealism, because the virtual reality in a VR simulation also kicks back. Existence: This is a word with many meanings. To use it, one should first say what type of existence you mean. For instance mathematical existence means a property of a number that is true - eg 47 is prime. Anthropic existence might mean something that kicks back to some observer somewhere in the plenitude of possibilities. There is another type of existence referring to that which kicks back to me here, right now. And so on. It is possible to say physical existence = mathematical existence as Tegmark does, but this is almost a definition, rather than a statement of metaphysics. Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: The Meaning of Life
I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea, like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have evidence on which to base a belief, such as the belief that the world was not in fact created in six 24-hr days. It is certainly possible that I am wrong, and the evidence for a very old universe has either been fabricated or grossly misinterpreted, but I would bet on being right. Wouldn't you also, if something you valued depended on the bet? Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:28:25 -0500 And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I know' a right position from a wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate... On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating WHAT days they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own rites. Sometimes I start an argument about a different (questionable?) belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty way. I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged.Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500 Stathiws, no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system. BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th beatitude). To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly unique. We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis Papaioannou Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis:is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered:I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can penetrate
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John: I think the idea before was to provide an acronym list and also give each person or like minded group a limit of a few pages in the FAQ document in which to present a summary of their point of view. Hal Ruhl At 11:59 AM 2/7/2007, you wrote: Hal: you really believe that anybody could provide responses acceptable for all others? (I did not say understandable) Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his own scientific religion (=scientific belief system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted now (again) Russell or not.] We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM). Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice. John - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi John: Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. Yours Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset. This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person) white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does not reintroduce new one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---