Friends,
I just let you know that I am a rather busy right now. I will comment
some post by Stephen, Craig and Brent, perhaps others, later.
Thanks for your patience,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/14/2011 6:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:18 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/14/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it seems best to understand the beginning of the universe as the
same
On Sep 14, 10:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it isn't deterministic, it's random.
Says who? Is your opinion on this determined for you or is it random?
What is determining it if not you?
Craig,
What seems clear to me from your response to Stathis is that you can
build something that does what it wants to do within a deterministic
system, such as the game of life.
Now you say we cannot predict the high level process of the mind to
know what the mind will do. This is true in one
On Sep 15, 12:11 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
What seems clear to me from your response to Stathis is that you can
build something that does what it wants to do within a deterministic
system, such as the game of life.
Depends what you mean by 'what it wants to do'. If
On 9/15/2011 4:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/14/2011 6:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:18 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 9/14/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it seems best to understand
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
As I have already mentioned, I am not that far to follow your
theorem. I will do it presumably the next year.
Take your time. I am at the step 6 on the dot forum, where things are
done slowly, deeply and in a nice
On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:07 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 13, 9:25 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything
On 13 Sep 2011, at 23:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 05:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This view of the psyche as being the inevitable result of sheer
biochemical momentum is not even remotely plausible to me. It denies
any
On 9/15/2011 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Working in practice does not mean truth.
Neither does working in theory.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 13 Sep 2011, at 23:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:53 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This sounds like a rejection of the mind-brain identity thesis,
which is
what functionalism / computationalism do. (Jason Resch)
It's
On 9/15/2011 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
As I have already mentioned, I am not that far to follow your theorem. I will do it
presumably the next year.
Take your time. I am at the step 6 on the dot forum, where things
On 9/15/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:07 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 13, 9:25 pm, Jason Resch
On 9/14/2011 9:54 PM Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Sep 14, 1:34 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
I would agree that it would easy to obtain thinking provided that
perception is there. This is though an open question, what does it
mean perception by a robot. Does for example
On 14 Sep 2011, at 06:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions:
On 14 Sep 2011, at 07:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the
On 9/15/2011 7:34 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At present, I am just trying to figure out our beliefs that make
the simulation hypothesis possible.
But this is really astonishing, and in quasi-contradiction which
On 15 Sep 2011, at 04:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2011 5:51 PM, Mindey wrote:
Nothingness (as absence of things) is more than a concept. It is a
mathematical concept - an empty set. It is easy to give an example of
an empty set
I'm not so sure about that. Usually you would give some
On 9/15/2011 11:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I personally do not see a difference in this respect between a cell, for example, and a
robot. On my hierarchy list
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/01/perception-feedback-and-qualia.html
a bacteria is closer to a ballcock than a Big Dog. I would say
On 15 Sep 2011, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Working in practice does not mean truth.
Neither does working in theory.
Still less, I concede. Most of time, especially on 'reality'. But that
is how and why we can progress.
Bruno
On 9/15/2011 12:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Let me repeat your statement: We just don't know any phenomena which are not Turing
emulable. I am not sure that it is so evident. As I have written, the simulation
hypothesis just does not work in practice. Hence your statement cannot be deduced
On 9/15/2011 9:08 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 11:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I personally do not see a difference in this respect between a
cell, for example, and a robot. On my hierarchy list
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/01/perception-feedback-and-qualia.html
a bacteria is
On 15 Sep 2011, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
As I have already mentioned, I am not that far to follow your
theorem. I will do it presumably the next year.
Take your time. I am
On 15 Sep 2011, at 21:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 7:34 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At present, I am just trying to figure out our beliefs that make
the simulation hypothesis possible.
But this is
Dear Bruno,
you know I am not one of 'those' taking EM for granted (rather consider such
things as ingenious HUMAN explanatory proposals for poorly understood
phenomena we think to receive over the millennia).
*Statistical,* however, is a consequence not only of the description WHAT
we watch,
On 9/15/2011 12:20 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 9:08 PM meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2011 11:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I personally do not see a difference in this respect between a
cell, for example, and a robot. On my hierarchy list
On 9/15/2011 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This witness a deep misunderstanding of mathematics. Mathematics single out our absolute
modesty. It is not an instrument of power, it is a realm of exploration, and we know
about nothing about it.
The search for ultimate laws is what interest us,
On 9/15/2011 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2011, at 07:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That
On 9/15/2011 12:49 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
you know I am not one of 'those' taking EM for granted (rather consider such things as
ingenious HUMAN explanatory proposals for poorly understood phenomena we think to
receive over the millennia).
*_Statistical,_* however, is a consequence
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2011 6:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:18 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/14/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it seems best to understand the beginning of the universe as the
same thing as the end of the universe
On 9/15/2011 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2011, at 06:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2011 6:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:18 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/14/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it seems best to understand the beginning of the universe
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
snip
On the contrary, the singularity is in the description. Which is
why no physicist believes the description (General Relativity) is
valid.
Brent
Ummm, really?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
snip
On the contrary, the singularity is in the description. Which is why no
physicist
On 9/15/2011 3:30 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
snip
On the contrary, the singularity is in the description. Which is why no physicist
believes the description (General
On 9/15/2011 6:59 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/15/2011 6:59 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/15/2011 5:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On
Thought you all might get something out of this:
I’m not so familiar with some of these concepts, so this is more of me
trying to understand them for the first time than an attempt to relate
something that I think I’ve already made sense of, so please excuse
any gross misunderstandings.
On 9/15/2011 9:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/15/2011 6:59 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Sep 15, 11:28 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
The greatest mystery is why spacetime
is man-
ifestly so smooth and classical all the way to the smallest conceivable
level.
As a general rule, I think anything that appears to have opposite
qualities, as with phenomena which
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
Any physically significant boost would act to alter the scale of
Plankian effects, that is what general covariance basically tosses out any
physically real notion of space-time points what ever
41 matches
Mail list logo
