On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is retractable path independence: path independence only over
retractable paths.
I don't
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is retractable path independence: path
On 24.08.2012 21:59 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Could you please tell me what an algorithm in a self-driving car is
responsible for intuition?
Any algorithm based on stochastics or heuristics, in other words most of
the
this is a test of my email browser. Please ignore
--
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
On 8/25/2012 2:41 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:04 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or
Hi Bruno Marchal and all,
Consider this analogy to the mind/body problem. Let the body or quanta
speak only french and the mind or qualia speak only english.
Then neither group is capable of understanding the other group,
but each group is able to communicate perfectly among themselves
in
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:36 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science.
That is plainly wrong. It is like saying what humans do is determined
through a (quite accurate) description of what humans do.
It is an
On 23 Aug 2012, at 19:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
programming a computer'
If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this
statement
On 23 Aug 2012, at 19:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The waveform is subjective as it represents a particular quantum
state.
In COMP terms it is 3p. But comp people may not think of it as
subjective
since every quantum state is realized and therefore all quanta are
objective.
With comp
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:01, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible
thing to do.
Correct.
But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the
ontological firewall
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I
(meta)disagree with such an idea: I use the scientific method,
which means that you cannot disagree with me without showing a
precise flaw
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:36, John Clark wrote:
I don't know either, nobody knows, even the computer doesn't know if
it will stop until it finds itself stopping;
If a computer stops, it will never know that. If it executes a
stopping program, then it can.
To stop has no first person
This is a partial sentence test, please ig
--
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
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
sequences of numbers, making the body problem into a problem of
arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the
universal
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context
and
ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does
not mean
that the emulation can substitute the original.
But here you do a
How can his cubic hash frown? How does metahype purge? Should the
insufficient fear roll? Can the ignored upstairs call Bruno? Bruno
sticks a razor above a beard. Why won't this mill thank metahype?
The pulp strikes against his freezing drift. Women discriminates an
abstract. Quantum dynamics
On 24 Aug 2012, at 11:57, Roger Clough wrote:
Does the comp project use any synthetic logic ?
IMHO synlog is the basis of worldly intelligence.
.
Analytic logic can tell us nothing new, so cannot be a
basis alone for intelligence.
Machines have already both. As the classical definition
Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:36 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science.
That is plainly wrong. It is like saying what humans do is determined
through a (quite accurate)
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Could you explain a little about Bp p duality ? Are they both
analytic, or does one of them us synthetic logic ?
I void using synthetic and analytic. Bp is a modal formula and its
interpretation here is provable('p') where
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:20, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I´m also very heterodox with respect to physics. Although I have a
degree in Physics, or just because that, I understand that physics
has exerted a reductionist fascination that has ruined every social
and human science, including
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
H. I guess I should have know this, but if there are
unproveable statements,
couldn't that also mean that the axioms needed to prove them have
simply been
overlooked in inventorying (or constructing) the a priori ? If
On 24 Aug 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Roger,
I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain
of non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is
essentially and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this
not the very definition
On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from
comp before this can be used as an argument here.
Normally?? The holographic principle was extracted from general
relativity and the
On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world
of inference inductive machine, a machine capable of being wrong is
already non computably more powerful than an error prone machine.
I am getting a bit tired of our discussion, so I will just adress the main
points:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
But let's say we mean except for memory and unlimited accuracy.
This would mean that we are computers, but not that we are ONLY
computers.
Is this
On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so
by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
That's QM+collapse, but
On 24 Aug 2012, at 21:07, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Chalmers followed my talk on the UD Argument at ASSC 4 and leaved
the room at step 3, saying that there is no indeterminacy as he will
feel to be at both places.
Do
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We might do things because the laws of arithmetic.
If so then we in particular and everything in general is as deterministic
as a cuckoo clock because when you add 2 numbers together you always get
the same answer. I might
On 8/25/2012 1:53 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/25/2012 2:41 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can
generate the subjective color perception.
I don't ask that you give a explanation but I do want to know what the
general shape a successful explanation would be. If I
On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:50:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I did it for many reasons
And a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons.
None of them are the reasons of a clock. If you must
On 25 Aug 2012, at 07:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 03:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is
left as an open problem
The body problem?
I address this directly as I show
Point, Set, Match: Craig Weinberg!
On 8/25/2012 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:50:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I did it for many reasons
And a cuckoo clock operates the way
On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the
mind/body
problem is
An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body.
and what solving it is supposed to mean.
Know how consciousness works and how it
On 8/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things because of the laws
of nature, and if we do not then we are random.
We might do things because the laws of arithmetic. With comp Nature is not in the
ontology. You are assuming
On 8/25/2012 2:26 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 25.08.2012 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly
what the mind/body
problem is
An explanation on how consciousness arises in the
On 25.08.2012 23:32 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/25/2012 2:26 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 25.08.2012 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly
what the mind/body
problem is
38 matches
Mail list logo
