John,
On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art
to measure each one into a proper participant):
...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without
using 2+2=4
Bruno
Explain, why 2+2=4 - without
On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the
existence of Time as Fundamental?
In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so
this is not son astonishing. Likewise he depart from
On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 25 Feb 2013, at 21:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:53:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You'll forgive me if I don't jump at the chance to shell out $51.96
for 300+ pages of the same warmed over cog-sci
Hi Bardia,
As an assignment, you might take a look to the archive and perhaps ask
a more specific question.
To sum up an important information from comp, in soccer term: Plato 1,
Aristotle 0.
But that's not the end of the game, only the beginning.
Bruno
On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:19, b s
On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/25/2013 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.
How can we know
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/25/2013 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A note for materialists.
That which perceives cannot be perceived.
It is, sotospeak, hidden in plain sight.
It is what is reading and interpreting this email.
The searcher cannot find himself, for he is doing the searching.
The tao which is spoken is not the tao.
--
You received this message
A note for materialists.
That which perceives cannot be perceived.
It is, sotospeak, hidden in plain sight.
It is what is reading and interpreting this email.
The searcher cannot find himself, for he is doing the searching.
The tao which is spoken is not the tao.
--
You received this message
On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
snip
That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of
computations.
With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s,
+ and *
(and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be
numerous, but
For what it's worth, here are two places on the internet to publish
your papers for free. Then they will appear to others on a Google
search.
You don't even need to do that. You can just post
your resume or bibliography on any yahoogroup
googlegroup posting. If you Google up anything
about
A note for materialists.
That which perceives cannot be perceived.
It is, sotospeak, hidden in plain sight.
It is what is reading and interpreting this email.
The searcher cannot find himself, for he is doing the searching.
The tao which is spoken is not the tao.
--
You received this message
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:24:54 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John,
On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art to
measure each one into a proper participant):
*...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:30:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5,
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:15:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 21:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:53:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You'll forgive me if I don't jump at the chance to
On 2/26/2013 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the
existence of Time as Fundamental?
In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so
this is not
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them,
or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.
I'm not sure how you mean that? We know that we experience individual objects
On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations. With comp,
the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms).
But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they
Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this
list it faded what you (really?) mean by
quasi classical physics
brains
and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on?
I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic accident
(incident?).
I put
I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later.
(BTW: was a neuron of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse?
With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the
past 50 years - no answer so far.
Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?)
I'm
Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions.
I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now.
Yet I raised one little suspicion in
*...How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we
don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything
Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we
don't assume them, or equivalent
On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this list it faded
what you (really?) mean by
quasi classical physics
I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little randomness from QM: consisting
of distinct objects
On 2/26/2013 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?
It's a one-to-one relation between objects. If you invent a special set of tokens (1, 2,
3) that everybody agrees on (i.e. a part of language) to use in the one-to-one relation
24 matches
Mail list logo
