Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

> On 10 Jun 2015, at 2:20 pm, LizR wrote: > >> On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones wrote: >> Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. What >> are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with me.) > > Thanks! :) > >> So yes, I don't think h

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones wrote: > Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. > What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with > me.) > Thanks! :) > So yes, I don't think hurling 'solopsist!' at someone hurts them much. > > It's b

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

> On 10 Jun 2015, at 11:53 am, LizR wrote: > >> On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones wrote: >>> On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> Bru

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of your teleportation thought experiments leading to FPI. It was readily shown that such thought

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones wrote: > On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR wrote: > > On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Ke

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

> On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR wrote: > >> On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Given a set of axio

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancompu

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these quite simple matters. The neuro-science are

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

I was close :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-l

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:39:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR wrote: > > > The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as > > per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging > > lots of non-super intelli

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR wrote: > >> The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as >> per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging >> lots of non-super intelligences. So the cha

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett > wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? Consci

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> > Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it >>> is likely to last longer

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR wrote: > The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as > per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging > lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself > non-super is vastly greater, becau

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark > wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: > Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam wrote: > >> From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence >> was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in >> increasingly unlikely situations where you were

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam wrote: > From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was > merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in > increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged > with the superintellig

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/9/2015 11:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We might defined nomological inconsistency by [i] p & [i] ~p, for [i] being a material hypostase. ?? What role does i play in the above? Are you assuming i implies p? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

>From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the onl

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the universe is. But in that case you've just emulated every

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: As Brent has suggested. You simply contradict yourself here. You say "It [comp] does not change physics", and "If comp change the content of physics, and nature follows physics, it will be comp which has to be abandoned." The

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

The answer is, pigeon breeders have to make little sets of underwear for their pigeons. Simple, really. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to every

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on > the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? -- You received this message because you are subscribed t

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made.

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them.

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam >>> wrote: >>> Perhaps most superintelligences end

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so >>> that their measure effectively beco

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is >> likely to last longer >> > > Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher > than average rates o

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is > likely to last longer > Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. Mathematicians kill themselves at a rate 1.8 times

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > >> Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so >> that their measure effectively becomes zero. >> > > Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduc

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: If not, there is no

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/9/2015 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote: > > This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one: > You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You > h

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that > their measure effectively becomes zero. > Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though t

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be describe

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

On 6/9/2015 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote: This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one: You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You have to poke them to get them even expose their genitals. They

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Terren On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions: > > - Super-intelligence is more

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED, string theory or theoretical computer science. A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That does not refute that rockets can work. Brent :) -- You recei

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett wrote: > What axioms led to arithmetic? The Peano axioms. Or the Robinson axiom, or many other systems. but they don't disagree on any formula. Even the theories having weird axioms like "PA is inconsistent"

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree w

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is "comp" for a mater

super intelligence and self-sampling

Hi everyone, Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions: - Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer (e.g. it is more likely to be able to anticipate existencial threats and prepare accordingly; it is more likely to spread

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett wrote: > What axioms led to arithmetic? The Peano axioms. They were chosen because they are very simple and self evident. You need to be very conservative when picking axioms, for example we could just add the Goldbach Conjecture as an axiom, but then if a com

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/9/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: > This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one: > You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You > have to poke them to get them even expose their genitals. > That's logic, but we were talking a

Re: Quran Audio

I suppose you can call it that :) People on this list have different assumptions, prejudices, misgivings, queries and (dis)interest level in Islam and the practice of Muslims. Just presenting the original document for any who might want to check for themselves. Actually I was a bit hesitant sha

Re: Quran Audio

Doing Dawa? Interesting. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:09 pm Subject: Quran Audio A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation for anyone interested in listening to he Quran: http://ww

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

What if they were, like, a really, really, big pigeons, then you'd spot them real easy! Think about that, Mister! Sakes! -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:08 pm Subject: Re: Pigeons offend Islam This is stupid on so many levels,

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

> On 9 Jun 2015, at 8:07 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results >>> always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is >>> made.

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be described mathematically and the structure

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as "kicking back". Johnson did

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >> wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of ma

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations. What? Reference? You mean the brain is not Turing emulable? Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of y

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote: This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one: You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You have to poke them to get them even expose their genitals. They confused it with the "feet" of the pig

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be described mathematically and the structure of arithmetic or mathematics themselves. Yes. Quite importan

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote: What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of course it does, even though

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of cours

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. I

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is imp

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:37, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something that was invented, and could equally well have been inven

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:24, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA expl

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 09 Jun 2015, at 00:21, LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean that only computatio

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic per se, and consequently nothing can 'eme

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:37, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent) Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on "justified". Plato's Theaetetus dialogue defines "knowledge" as "true belief". I think that's a deficiency in

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the numbers, but tha

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive matter for making "more

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think) Comp1 is not comp, even if it is "comp" for a materialist: but that position is proved to be

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 08 Jun 2015, at 18:40, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That set can be defined in standard set theory >> YOU CAN'T MAKE A COMPUTAT

Re: Quran Audio

> On 9 Jun 2015, at 12:09 pm, Samiya Illias wrote: > > A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation > for anyone interested in listening to he Quran: > http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ > > Samiya YOU WISH Kim -- You received this message because you a

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations. What? Reference? You mean the brain is not Turing emulable? Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of your brain can be emulated by a computer does n