Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/23/2014 1:56 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote: On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/23/2014 10:08 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM, meekerdb > wrote: >> Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure after the e

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:08:37PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > >> Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it > >> with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure after > >> the experiment have only had

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Peter Sas wrote: Hi Richard, I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather from the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of positive energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too some kind of polarity seems to hold. The point is that

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 10/23/2014 12:50 AM, Peter Sas wrote: Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get with pure logic alone. It is of course very, ve

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/23/2014 12:36 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 23 October 2014 15:14, meekerdb wrote: > >> But by the same kind of positivist attitude there's no reason to think >> that every integer has a successor. It's just a convenient assumption for >> doing proo

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 24 October 2014 09:09, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb >> >> > Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers. >> >> >>

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

Liz: I should object to the subject. How can Islm be GENERALIZED with their differences among their own shades? IS happily chops off Islamic heads if their sentiments diverge. Shia-s Sunnis are warring for 15 centuries and I would not volunteer counting the diverse shade-differences ('shady'?) JM

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/23/2014 12:37 AM, LizR wrote: On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> > Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 10/23/2014 12:36 AM, LizR wrote: On 23 October 2014 15:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: But by the same kind of positivist attitude there's no reason to think that every integer has a successor. It's just a convenient assumption for doing proofs and calculation

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-23 21:21 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM, LizR wrote: > > > There are much more interesting objections to Bruno's proof than the one >> you cite, which appears to be, at best, a semantic quibble. >> > > I assume you're referring to Bruno's irresponsible use of per

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You got the idea that consciousness is not localizable, > Yes. > but it seems that you fail to appreciate the consequences on this > I believe it's you who has not integrated the consequences of consciousness not having a location. So it is meaningl

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM, LizR wrote: > There are much more interesting objections to Bruno's proof than the one > you cite, which appears to be, at best, a semantic quibble. > I assume you're referring to Bruno's irresponsible use of personal pronouns, and that is far more than a quibble

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Richard, I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather from the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of positive energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too some kind of polarity seems to hold. The point is that as space expands, d

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:30 AM, LizR wrote: >> No, in other words several years ago I started to read Bruno's "proof" >> and stopped reading when I made the determination that he didn't know what >> he was talking about. Nothing Bruno has said since then has made me think I >> made the wrong de

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it >> with experiment the values we put into it and the values we measure after >> the experiment have only had values at best a dozen or so places to the >> right of the decimal po

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 Oct 2014, at 02:23, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR wrote: I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I could no longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in step 3 that I decided that the entire thing was worthless or i

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 Oct 2014, at 03:41, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Wait? How long should I wait? > Well, it depends which programs you want to know if it stops or not. The disonaur program stopped. In case it is that one. But for the search of a proof of Goldbach

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:14, meekerdb wrote: On 10/22/2014 5:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: Brent, That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations, but is it also true for matrix

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:52, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale notion of god, There are 2 choices, you can have: 1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining but silly. 2) A notion

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 23 Oct 2014, at 05:34, LizR wrote: IMHO this slightly understates the problem of an infinite causal chain: The idea of an eternally existing universe - for example in the form of an eternal cycle of Big Bangs - might turn out to be a scientifically legitimate hypothesis. It might even t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Peter Sas wrote: > Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a > physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental > question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get > with pure logic alone. It is of

Re: philosophy tech support

On 23 October 2014 21:47, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:57 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 23 October 2014 01:22, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> I suspect "Everything List Tech Support" would be quite similar! >>> >>> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/51 >>> >> >> Reminds me of Monty

Re: philosophy tech support

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:57 AM, LizR wrote: > On 23 October 2014 01:22, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> I suspect "Everything List Tech Support" would be quite similar! >> >> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/51 >> > > Reminds me of Monty Python's philosophers' football match. > > https://www.youtub

Re: philosophy tech support

On 23 October 2014 21:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/22/2014 5:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> I suspect "Everything List Tech Support" would be quite similar! >>> >>> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/51 >>> >> >> Metaphysics is a

Re: philosophy tech support

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/22/2014 5:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> I suspect "Everything List Tech Support" would be quite similar! >> >> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/51 >> > > Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a 30,000 page menu and no > food.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get with pure logic alone. It is of course very, very tricky to try to derive fundamental l

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 October 2014 15:29, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/22/2014 7:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb > > > Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers. > > > Quantum mechanics works very well, but every time we've tested it > with experiment the values we

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 October 2014 15:14, meekerdb wrote: > But by the same kind of positivist attitude there's no reason to think > that every integer has a successor. It's just a convenient assumption for > doing proofs and calculations. > > So do you think there's a largest integer? If so, how might one dete

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 October 2014 13:35, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 22 Oct 2014, at 11:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > >Brent, > > > > > >That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations, > > >but is it also true for matrix theory? >

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 23 October 2014 13:23, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > I haven't looked at it in years, if you put a gun to my head I could no >>> longer even tell you what steps 0, 1, or 2 were or if it was in step 3 >>> that I decided that the entire thing was worthle