Could this be why there are unprovable things ? That
they unprovable because they involve Being itself ?
Yesterday I listed three things I felt that one cannot prove or disprove
1. That God exists or does not exist.
2. That I exist or do not exist.
3. That computers can be conscious or
Hi LK Personal
Right.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/27/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: LK Personal
Receiver: Roger Clough
Time: 2012-12-27, 00:46:11
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot
As pearls to the swine
A logic engine can only deal with objective, publicly available
meanings (Dictionary meanings, descriptions, Thirdnesses or IIIs).
That is, logical propositions. Poetry or the Bible can thus appear to be
nonsense to a logician.
Which is no surprise, since a text
On 26 Dec 2012, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi everything-list
IMHO that comp iis true or not is equalvalent to the question
does
1p = 3p ?
where
1p= truth by experience (or actuality) and
3p = truth by description (by theory)
With comp:
1p = 3p in Heaven.
1p is NOT = to 3p
On 26 Dec 2012, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
information is not abstract, it's physical and is deeply involved
with both energy and entropy.
You confuse some notion of physical information with the
mathematical
On 26 Dec 2012, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/26/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Dec 2012, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/24/2012 2:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We don't have to bet the brain is (Turing universal), we can
prove it.
Can we? How would you prove than every
On 26 Dec 2012, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/26/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John,
On 24 Dec 2012, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
we T H I N K we have an idea what 'qualia' may be and ACCEPT our
figment on 'quanta' (i.e numbered 'objects' - figments as well).
On 26 Dec 2012, at 22:19, Roger Clough wrote:
Bruno,
The question of whether a thermostat or a computer is conscious
or not seems to be the solipsism issue, namely that only the
computer (not us)
can know whether it is conscious or not. But if I cannot prove that
other minds than mine do
On 26 Dec 2012, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/26/2012 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think Tegmark takes the 1p indeterminacy into account,
except in the quantum wave, but not on math in general or in
arithmetic.
I thought his idea was that in the infinite universe there are
Hi Bruno Marchal
OK, and I suppose that if 1p always equals 3p, we
have achieved sainthood or life after death. :-)
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/27/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
On 12/27/2012 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is intuitive and amenable to thought experience, like the experience of the blind
Mary which studies many books on color and qualia and still has any clue what it is like
to be a seeing person.
I think Dennett is right when he says our
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21:06AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Good point.
You are right, but we cannot do without 1p and 2p
unless we want to live in Flatland (Thirdness, the publicly
available world of 3p logic). Truths are stated in words,
so it includes
That would be an extraordinary result, if true. It would require us to
rewrite pretty much all of our physics textbooks.
Lets just say that I will remain sceptical until it has been
reproduced by multiple independent groups.
Cheers
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:04:53AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
1. That God exists or does not exist.
2. That I exist or do not exist.
3. That computers can be conscious or not.
It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious
On 12/27/2012 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote
This is a silly game. There are different kinds and standards of proof. Mathematical
theorems are proven by following defined rules of inference from given axioms.
15 matches
Mail list logo
