On 08 Jun 2015, at 20:50, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam
On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You claim that physics emerges from the UD,
I claim only that IF comp is true, then physics HAVE to emerge from
the UD.
But I don't think you've shown that. Comp1 doesn't imply that all
possible
On 13 Jun 2015, at 06:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can
make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose
John Mikes wrote:
(Brent):
But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable
physics. The two are not separable.
(Bruno):
Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the self-
referentially correct machine theory.
...
The entire train of sophistication is based on
On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You say that comp is useless,
On 12 Jun 2015, at 22:24, John Mikes wrote:
Samiya, thank you for (now the first time) you moved out of your calm.
(I did it!). Then you concluded with the habituel scripture-loving
phrase
upon which Brent had a brilliant reply
S: A person's concern for their own future should be reason
On 13 Jun 2015, at 06:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can
make up
an indefinite number of
On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
nor have you produced a conscious program or computer.
Here is one:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
+ for all F first order arithmetical formula:
(F(0) Ax(F(x)
On 13 Jun 2015, at 00:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that
Bruce Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock
computing ...
Where do you think Intel get the silicon for their chips...?
On 12 Jun 2015, at 22:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 1:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You wrote:
(Brent):
But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a
stable
physics. The two are not separable.
(Bruno):
Exactly, that is
On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhke...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
On 6/14/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic is full of life, ... and taxes and death.
But it needs interpretation to be full of death and taxes. Otherwise it is just abstract
relations. That's exactly why it is so useful; the same relations hold under many
different
On 6/14/2015 12:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well anyway.
I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is
On 14 June 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well anyway.
I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is considered
problematic. First, we, creatures who evolved in this world, invented it
Samiya wrote:
'our centuries of enlightenment'? really? creating deadly weapons of mass
destruction and using them, poisoning the planet and creating imbalance in
the ecosystem, rendering entire species extinct, toying with the weather,
... enlightenment??? and where can we run away from it
My apologies. You also say something that boils down to THIS is how we
discovered maths in the first place (abstracted from objects etc) ...
THEREFORE we invented it.
On which basis we invented gravity etc.
What we invent is a description. (Of gravity, maths, etc.) That doesn't
mean our
On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is bizarre that some people tarnish the effort of people working
in some field, and admits not being interested in the question. may
be Bruce just confuse physics and metaphysical physicalism.
Bruno
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/
--
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
On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's
effective.
Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well
onto some parts of maths, and may even map exactly (we have no reason to
On 15 June 2015 at 11:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:40AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there
...but it really *is* the Lord of the Rings.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/saturn-s-newest-ring-is-mind-bogglingly-big/
--
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
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/comet-lander-philae-wakes-up-and-phones-home
--
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
On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well
Mathematics is a language that can always describe regularities and it can
do so more tersely than any other language; and if the laws of physics
didn't have regularities they wouldn't be laws. But a language does not
create
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent says, this
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent says, this is not surprising - evolution would see
to it that we would choose a mathematical system out of the many
possible that would be
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent says, this is not surprising - evolution would see
to it that
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2015, at 00:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that Bruce
Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock computing
...
Where do you think Intel get the silicon for their
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:40AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string
landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:35:47AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in
On 15 June 2015 at 12:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well
Mathematics is a language
it is? Are you saying that
(a) there exists, out there, a language called maths which just happens to
be great for describing
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string
landscape in which some
The answer inspires me to ask, anything surprising or interesting in the
patterns? The answer is no, but I needed to ask, despite this. Nothing of
meaning to anyone, save, the math heads, who uncover relations and patterns.
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
33 matches
Mail list logo
