Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/4/25 Brent Meeker :
>
>
>> This implicitly assumes that you can dispense with the continuum and
>> treat the process as a succession of discrete states. I question that.
>>
>
> So are you saying that, because we are conscious, that is evidence
> that real
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/4/24 Brent Meeker :
>
>
>>> Boltzmann brains are improbable, but the example of the punchcards is
>>> not. The operator could have two punchcards in his pocket, have a
>>> conversation with someone on the way from M1 to M2 and end up
>>> forgetting or almost fo
2009/4/25 Brent Meeker :
> This implicitly assumes that you can dispense with the continuum and
> treat the process as a succession of discrete states. I question that.
So are you saying that, because we are conscious, that is evidence
that reality is at bottom continuous rather than discrete?
2009/4/24 Brent Meeker :
>> Boltzmann brains are improbable, but the example of the punchcards is
>> not. The operator could have two punchcards in his pocket, have a
>> conversation with someone on the way from M1 to M2 and end up
>> forgetting or almost forgetting which is the right one. That i
Jason Resch wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> Your arguments are compelling and logical, you have put a lot of doubt
> in my mind about computationalism. I have actually been in somewhat
> of a state of confusion since Bruno's movie graph argument coupled
> with a paper by Max Tegmark. In Tegmark's paper, he
Hi all,
I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from
here might be interested.
http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic
I've looked around for a high-quality group that discusses these
things, but I haven't really found one. The logic-oriented mailing
lists I've seen ar
On 24 Apr 2009, at 06:14, Kelly wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 12:24 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> So for that to be a plausible scenario we have to
>>> say that a person at a particular instant in time can be fully
>>> described by some set of data.
>>
>> Not fully. I agree with Brent that you need an i
On 24 Apr 2009, at 02:37, Kelly wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2:02 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> I was with you up to that last sentence. Forward or backward, we
>> just
>> experience increasing entropy as increasing time, but that doesn't
>> warrant the conclusion that no process is required and an "i
Kelly,
Your arguments are compelling and logical, you have put a lot of doubt
in my mind about computationalism. I have actually been in somewhat
of a state of confusion since Bruno's movie graph argument coupled
with a paper by Max Tegmark. In Tegmark's paper, he was explaining
that there is a
9 matches
Mail list logo
