and clear, but which on reflection you find isn't clear
at all. What is Nothing? Can you conceive of Nothing? Is absolute Nothing a
coherent concept or is Nothing just absence of matter, i.e. empty space.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
to it, and without a measure, something to pick out this
rather than that, the theory is empty. It just says what is possible is
possible. But if there a measure, something picks out this rather than that,
we can ask why THAT measure?
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
a manifold as background space. Loop quantum gravity is
closer to a CA since it doesn't assume any continuum.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
of non-contradictory property
statements.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
what you mean by locally. Since they have opposite charge they
will be attracted by photon exchanges and will fall into some hydrogen atom
state by emission of photons.
Brent Meeker
In QM this is given by a tensor product of the
corresponding states. But it is an exceptional state. With comp
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is
deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented
any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You
merely refer
mathematics as
an approximate model and only using as much infinity as seems useful.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
tables and chairs are as well as protons and electrons.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But these ideas illustrate a problem with
everything-exists. Everything conceivable, i.e. not
self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But these ideas illustrate a problem with
everything-exists. Everything
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and
other small
numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is
infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is
zero or almost zero
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like
being
the one person in a million who has to win the lottery
or gained.
Brent Meeker
If we accept the idea of CA as the fundamental building blocks of the
nature we should explain: why some patterns and not the others. Some
that have lead to our physical laws and not the other possibilities?
In this situation the idea of multiverse might help
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent
universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite
arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything).
And how do things run in Platonia
) but it would not include isolated OMs that didn't
include memory of a predecessor.
Brent Meeker
Thus it is meaningless to
speak of having the same experience multiple times: you only experience
one thing at a time, and you can't remember experiencing multiple
identical experiences, since
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in telepathic
communication with any other OMs, whether related to it or not. The
effect (or illusion
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are OMs which don't
remember being you then they are not going to be part of your
stream of
consciousness.
There's the rub. Almost all my
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Brent Meeker quoted:
Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV channel.
--- George Carlin
Carlin makes the typical confusion between atheism and agnosticism.
An atheist has indeed a rich belief system
butter. and not I shouldn't use insecticide here.
Brent Meeker
- Original Message -
*From:* Stathis Papaioannou mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2007 7:13 PM
? Is it a matter of the provenance of the numbers,
e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an inherent relation
like being relatively prime?
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the
numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an
inherent relation like being relatively prime?
It is an inherent relation like
the rate, i.e. the clock.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 20-mars-07, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 3/20/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 01-mars-07, à 00:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Brent Meeker quoted:
Atheism is a belief system the way Off is a TV
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M wrote:
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
we are (thing-wise
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
be damage from one of my motorcycle
crashes :-)).
I wonder if they surveyed any Inuits, who traditionally killed female infants
in a family until a son had been born.
Brent Meeker
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. I'm talking about a sort of program/data division - which I
recognize is arbitrary in computer program - but I think may have an
analogue in brains. When I write
to Bruno's program and
those require realized infinities.
Brent Meeker
we are not *in* a mathematical structure, we are distributed in an
infinity of mathematical structures, and physicality emerges from the
interference of them.
Why a wavy interference? Open problem.
Bruno
vanished
from the explanation.
Brent Meeker
Intuitively it feels that each mind is on a
set track to only experience those OM's that follow from the birth of
an observer, but logically there are too many problems with this.
Possible problems with RSSA:
Quantum mechanics means each
when it does so. I think you need to
read Vic Stenger's book, The Comprehensible Cosmos.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
choice.
Brent Meeker
The laws of physics are ruleless rules that arise not from any plan but from
the very lack any plan. They are the laws of the void.
--- Vic Stenger
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
information but I don't see
that the electron IS information.
So there has to be a partial match between the
information content of useful concepts and objective reality.
But it doesn't follow that reality IS information.
Brent Meeker
That's
why we can refer a failure of reductionism from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly
are not regarded that way by scientists
They are by the scientists I know.
The *knowledge* we have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism.
(1) Infinite Sets
But there is no infinite set of anything.
Says who? The point is that infinite
them as a continuum. And in fact for hypersonic
flows I have to start taking the molecules into account. And *really* I know
the molecules are made up of atoms and so there is dissocation at high
temperatures and I need to make corrections for that and...so on.
Brent Meeker
The
distinction
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of
reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Infinite sets and infinitesimals are a lot more than 'mathematical
conveniences'. There are precise logical theories for these things
(As I mentioned before - Cantor worked out
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can Everett's every possibility is realized be logically compatible
with Bohm's there's only one, deterministic outcome, we just don't know
which one and Griffith's it's
point theorem by
Brouwer, which today admits many interesting computational
interpretations.
Bruno
I don't think you can define a topology on meaning that will allow the fixed
point theorem to apply.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
Thanks, Bruno. I did know that - just forgot because it's been a long time. I
don't think it's related to Brouwer's fixed point theorem though: that assumes
a continuous topology. But I see what you mean by a fixed point of computation.
I'm now reading your elsevier paper.
Brent Meeker
mathematicians generally get
along just fine without worrying about completeness or the provability of
consistency.
Brent Meeker
To know that it is true, I am using self-reference about my own proof
capabilities.
I don't think anyone yet has managed a self aware formal system,
although self
.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options
be possible.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
effect on the universe.
But I think you can argue that humans are capable (at least in principle) of
universal computation, so any understanding realizable as computation should be
within our grasp.
Brent Meeker
On 5/31/07, *Jason* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
that consciousness is not a single thing. He has
written some essays on what it would mean to create a conscious
artificial intelligence:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/consciousness.html
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/zombie.pdf
Brent Meeker
On Saturday 02 June 2007 22:13:30 Hal Finney
explicit and useful essay on his website.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send
counts as bad behavoir and what doesn't.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group
this question can be answered without first
having a good 3rd person theory of what constitutes consciousness.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
competition from those distant from them. To suppose that
empathy and reflection can eliminate all competition for limited resources
strikes me as pollyannish.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 5, 5:05 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
However, what would be wrong with a super AI that just had large
amounts of pattern recognition and symbolic reasoning
intelligence, but no emotions at all?
Taken strictly, I
? An
improvement relative to which goals, the old or the new?
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from
can raise through puberty. Avoiding death should only be a subgoal.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
be reinterpreted to fit (in terms of volumes). Or, as in a gathering of
the high school basketball team with 12 members in a room with the high school
tennis team with 10 members, you may find that 10+12=15. So applying the model
requires judgment about what counts and what + means.
Brent Meeker
- I
observe it.
Brent Meeker
COLIN
snip
So this means that in a computer abstraction.
d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
--- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t)
dt
RUSSEL
No its not. dK/dt is generated by the interaction of the rules with the
environment.
No. No. No. There is the old
.
Please consider your exasperation quota reached. Job done.
I hope you haven't given up on explaining observation.
Brent Meeker
colin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
The subjective experience is just some sort of behaviour. You can
make computers show the same sort
, but this is more than it's
physical interactions (which are merely part of it's formal description)?
Maybe so - but my intuition doesn't tell me anything about it.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
in people.
Brent Meeker
The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is
not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true
human strength;
ethics is the foundation of civilisation;
Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success
of democracy
David Nyman wrote:
On 23/06/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: But he could also switch from an account in terms of the machine
level causality to an account in terms of the computed 'world'. In fact
he could switch back and forth. Causality
to an account in terms of the computed 'world'. In fact he could
switch back and forth. Causality in the computed 'world' would have it's
corresponding causality in the machine and vice versa. So I don't see why they
should be regarded as orthogonal.
Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote:
On 23/06/07, *Russell Standish* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RS: Perhaps you are one of those rare souls with a foot in
each camp. That could be be very productive!
I hope so! Let's see...
RS: This last post is perfectly lucid to me.
spent
a long time in a sensory deprivation tank (an hour or more) that their mind
would enter a loop and they lost all sense of time.
Brent Meeker
Of course I'm not claiming by this that machines couldn't be conscious.
My claim is rather that if they are, it couldn't be solely in virtue
and manipulative organs.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
without consciousness in the
first place.
Quenton
But if consciousness is implied by conscious like behavior then it may
be explained by the same things that explain behavior, i.e. physics and
chemistry.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
: PA can
prove that if ZF is consistent then ZF can prove its own consistency.
Of course you meant ..then ZF cannot prove its own consistency.
Brent Meeker
So, in general a machine can find its own godelian sentences, and can
even infer their truth in some abductive way from very minimal
: flying pigs, Santa Claus, and victory in Iraq. But if we assign a
non-zero probability to one of theses we are just quantifying the uncertainty
of our knowledge.
Brent Meeker
Unless there is reason to believe that
the probability is so small as to be negligible (and I don't see such a
reason
definition
of reflexive?
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
David Nyman wrote:
On 10/07/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I draw a complete blank when I read your use of the word reflexive. What
exactly do you mean? How would you distinguish reflexive from non-reflexive
existence? Do numbers exist reflexively? Do somethiings exist
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence
simpliciter isn't it?
Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively
exists without being observed.
Observed
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe
a different interpretation of E.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
Here's a school that's ahead of Bruno in taking consistency to be part of
theology. :-)
http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
by humans.
But if they differ how do they fit into a commonality averaged across many
events and agents?
Brent Meeker
If I had known then what I know now, I would have made the same
mistakes sooner.
--- Robert Half
What they have to be are inert EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES, taking the
form
need to directly observe your brain. I predict that
you prefer the appearance of nude young women to that of nude young men.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:45 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know whether you're hair splitting or speaking loosely, but the
above is off the point in a couple of ways. In the first place empirical
science is inductive not deductive; so
person that you still won't get that feeling.
But in fact, a little cocaine may very well give you that feeling, the feeling
that everything is clear and understood by you.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
David Nyman wrote:
On 27/08/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're setting up an impossible standard of explaining.
You're asking that it produce a certain feeling in you, and then
you're speculating that after being given all the physics of
conscious processes and even
David Nyman wrote:
On 27/08/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But my point is that you're insisting that explanation is something that you
find satisfying. It's not that explanation fails in general, it fails
subjectively for you. Every explanation can fail in that way on any
be explained in terms of any finite physical processes.
I don't think so. Infinities in physical theories are just convenient
approximations for something very big.
Brent Meeker
This is
as clear-cut proof of the existence of non-material properties as
you're ever likely to see! Mathematical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:20 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for spelling it out.
(1) Mathematical concepts are indispensible to our explanations of
reality.
So are grammatical concepts.
No they aren't. Grammatical concepts are human creations, which
, mathematicians
resort to intuition justify the existence of some whole? Theology indeed!
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-août-07, à 23:11, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-août-07, à 02:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I *don't* think that mathematical
properties are properties of our *descriptions* of the things. I
think they are properties *of the thing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:21 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-août-07, à 23:11, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-août-07, à 02:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I *don't* think that mathematical properties are properties
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 30-août-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
? I don't understand. Arithmetic is about number. Meta-arithmetic is
about theories on numbers. That is very different.
Yes, I understand that. But ISTM the argument went sort of like this:
I
can say) themselves.
OK?
OK.
Brent Meeker
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
that the universe is computable. A clearly
circular argument.
Brent Meeker
Now it might
seem that one approach to explaining that amazing fact, is to say the
reason
why physical processes conform to this very small part of mathematics,
'computable mathematics,' is that physical processes really
other entities that don't.
OK. So where are the flying pigs?
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So where are the flying pigs?
Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is.
Ok. Why are they there and not here?
I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that saying everything-exists is not only
imaginable and describable in some
alphabet are equivalent. People construct perfectly grammatical noun
clauses that don't correspond to anything imaginable, e.g. quadratic
chairs.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
not be
contradictory, i.e. capable of proving false, in order to be contradicted.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
things with properties. If you allow countably many
n-place relations, how will you encode them and how will you express that
things like George owes an explanation of counting to Bob. Do you assume
that every thing has enough distinct properties to make it unique?
Brent Meeker
limited in some way.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
(because there are none).
Is the conclusion correct?
No, because (under your assumptions) the argument is time-translation
invariant.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
efficient hypothesis.
Brent Meeker
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
701 - 800 of 5561 matches
Mail list logo
