on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories
fits enough a reality.
The theories
on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
on 03.09.2010 06:46 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/2/2010 1:32 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Of course it is *logically* possible that any new data could be
consistent with physicalism - but then logical
on 07.09.2010 05:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Put a different way:
According to physicalism conscious experience supervenes on quarks
and electrons. Quarks and
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas,
explanations, theories, the whole ball of wax - none of
on 18.09.2010 01:38 1Z said the following:
On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.comwrote:
...
The next citation by Robert B. Laughlin (Nobel laureate in
physics) could be
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I understand your answer. Say we have H2 and O2 at room
on 18.09.2010 19:02 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 17 Sep 2010, at 19:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This is why attempts to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms
always result in nonsense statements such as their being neither
here nor there but simultaneously everywhere.
IMO
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements
on 19.09.2010 01:52 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 19:32, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ruwrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water.
on 18.09.2010 23:35 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference
John,
I am not sure if I have a particular position. I am a chemist by
background, well I was doing all the life simulation only.
Actually I am comfortable with reductionism ideas, as many scientist
are. Yet, I do not understand something.
Say chemistry starts that H2 has a single bond, 02
The text is well done. Thanks. A question. What would be the consequence
of the nomologicalism for a person that would like to earn some more
money? Well, let us not consider the case when one successfully sells
the text about nomologicalism.
Evgenii
on 21.09.2010 19:10 Rex Allen said the
on 19.11.2010 04:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the
source) where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the
brain?, meaning is it the matter that
of Wolfram (I guess it is close to the statement
that the Universe is some kind of a cellular automaton), it does not
matter much if a node is fully deterministic or random.
Evgenii
on 20.11.2010 23:57 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 11/20/2010 5:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 19.11.2010
Dear Bruno,
Could you please recommend some reading about the mechanist assumption?
Especially that
then the observable reality cannot be a machine
Evgenii
on 21.11.2010 15:58 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me
on 27.11.2010 22:19 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
information could
on 28.11.2010 20:46 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.comwrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
information could be
on 02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian Tennesontenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
We're talking about a mathematical theory about E.
What relevance does this comment have?
I would say that a model and reality are different things. Do you mean
that they
?
Evgenii
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/08/computable-universes.html
on 02.01.2011 10:31 Brian Tenneson said the following:
In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality.
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian
Tennesontenn
on 02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Some time ago, I have read
David Chalmers, The Matrix as Metaphysics
http://consc.net/papers/matrix.pdf
Let me make one citation
Importantly, nothing about this Metaphysical Hypothesis is
skeptical
on 02.01.2011 12:54 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Thank you for your answers. We could say that the Universe is made
of superstrings or we could say that the Universe is made
On 24.09.2012 18:23 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/24/2012 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 18:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.09.2012 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 09:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 22.09.2012 22:49 meekerdb said
On 29.09.2012 21:28 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/29/2012 5:43 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have understood Brent in such a way that when engineers
develop a robot they must just care about functionality to
achieve and they can ignore consciousness at all. Whether it
appears in the robot
I have read a nice paper
Jordi Cat
Into the ‘regions of physical and metaphysical chaos’: Maxwell’s
scientific metaphysics and natural philosophy of action (agency,
determinacy and necessity from theology, moral philosophy and history to
mathematics, theory and experiment)
Studies in History
On 07.10.2012 14:04 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
He's got it all mixed up.
Physics deals with objects extended in space. Things. Metaphysics
deals with inextended objects. Ideas.
Yet, he was able to develop the theory of electromagnetism.
Evgenii
--
You received
On 07.10.2012 14:44 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical
theory, even if it's hard to pin down the extension property.
Physical theories can tell us nothing about philosophy or mind or
God, since they cannot deal
On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian
epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology.
You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to
Popperian epistemology can evolve.
“To sum
On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following:
http://s33light.org/post/33296583824
Have a look. Objections? Suggestions?
I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness.
Eliminativism is not Epiphenomenalism. The small difference is that
epiphenomenalism assumes mental
On 10.10.2012 21:45 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
...
Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical
to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything
goes through physical
On 26.09.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of
consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's
point that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard.
Consciousness in Cognitive Architectures A Principled
On 11.10.2012 11:36 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following:
On 26.09.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem
of consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John
Clark's point that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard
On 12.10.2012 22:54 Russell Standish said the following:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:23:33AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Life cannot survive without making choices, like where to go next.
To avoid an enemy. To get food.
This act of life obviously requires an autonomous
On 14.10.2012 01:46 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:16:06PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Another question here would be who will divide the state space to
a bacterium and environment. Let us imagine that we have
implemented somehow a bacterium in Game of Life
Contest by FQXi
http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay
Click Read the contest entries to find it out.
Evgenii
--
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
I have started reading Scientific Representation by Bas C Van Fraasen
and I have just finished the first chapter, Representation Of,
Representation As. Here there is a discussion what we mean by
representation in a normal language. The author defends that a
representation is
p. 21 Z uses X
On 21.10.2012 10:05 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I don't think that is true. The other way around makes just as much
sense of not more: Reading Chinese is a simple behavior which
drives the behavior
On 24.10.2012 20:31 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract
Comments?
Woo-woo. Small effect sizes which are *statistically* significant
are indicative of bias errors. I'd
From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective by Bas C Van
Fraassen.
p. 40 'Of course the story is apocryphal, that a professional gambler
funded a mathematician to analyze horse-racing, and was thoroughly
unhappy with the report that began Let each horse be a perfect sphere,
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
p. 45 Agreed, we cannot demonstrate that in principle, as a matter of
logic, mathematical modeling must inevitably be a distortion of what is
modeled, although models actually constructed
On 29.10.2012 19:21 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
p. 45 Agreed, we cannot demonstrate that in principle, as a matter
of logic, mathematical
On 29.10.2012 20:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 11:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 29.10.2012 19:21 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes
of Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen
On 30.10.2012 11:26 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
p. 45 Agreed, we cannot demonstrate that in principle, as a matter
of logic
On 30.10.2012 17:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/30/2012 4:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In this chapter, Van Fraassen has considered a map as a model for a
typical model. A map is in the objective world, as well as a
scientific model, but to use the map one has to find out where
On 30.10.2012 16:25 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 12:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
You talk for example about integers as a framework for everything.
Fine. Yet, I would like to understand how mankind through it
development has invented integers. How comp would help
A nice video
http://www.newscientist.com/video/1872152752001-what-is-reality.html
You have to ignore a short sponsor message at the beginning.
Evgenii
P.S. I have found it by
http://magpie73.livejournal.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 01.11.2012 18:00 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/1/2012 5:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.10.2012 17:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/30/2012 4:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In this chapter, Van Fraassen has considered a map as a model
for a typical model. A map
On 01.11.2012 18:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 11:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
“Absolute Spirit is the fundamental reality. But in order to create
the world, the Absolute manifests itself, or goes out of itself in
a sense, the Absolute forgets itself and empties
Some more quotes from Bas C Van Fraassen Scientific Representation:
Paradoxes of Perspective. This time on what Weyl has said on isomorphism
between mathematics and reality.
p. 208 Herman Weyl expressed the fundamental insight as follows in 1934:
'A science can never determine its
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
alternatives:
o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is
mistaken, or
o that scientific representation
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is
not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some
scientific theory?
Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not
part
of a scientific
On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew
their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ?
I guess this is a very good example, as the Wright brothers have just
done it. I am not
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and
which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of
some scientific
On 05.11.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/5/2012 1:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know
On 10.11.2012 12:17 Roger Clough said the following:
I spent a career at NIST studying the resulting effects on strength.
Do you know John Hastie and David Bonnell? I have been once an year with
them at NIST.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 15.11.2012 17:10 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior than
current chemistry and materials science can. And suggest the
possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well as
explaining little understood
I listen to Galileo by John L. Heilbron. Below are two interesting facts
from the book together with links that I have found in Internet.
1) Galileo about Inferno
Galileo has started his scientific career with a speech about how
Inferno looks like where he has applied his mathematical genius
I have recently seen a paper on a Physarum machine
A Adamatzky
Physarum machine: implementation of a Kolmogorov-Uspensky machine on a
biological substrate
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0703128
The author also has a book on this theme: Physarum Machines: Computers
from Slime Mould.
Any comment?
A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows:
1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's time.
2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology.
p. 318 ‘However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by Copernicus
can be employed in calculations,
On 02.01.2013 21:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/2/2013 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows:
1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's
time.
2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology.
p. 318
On 26.12.2012 13:45 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 Dec 2012, at 12:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have recently seen a paper on a Physarum machine
A Adamatzky Physarum machine: implementation of a
Kolmogorov-Uspensky machine on a biological substrate
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0703128
I have read a thesis
Douglas Bertrand Marshall, Investigations into the Applicability of
Geometry, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University (2011)
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dmarshal/
where the author considers views of Aristotle, Galileo and Leibniz on
the relationship between Geometry and Nature. The
Stephen,
I have a more general question. I am not a mathematician and I do not
quite understand the relationship between mathematics and the world that
surround me.
It seems to me that your writing implies that there is the intimate
connections between mathematics and the Universe. Could
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are within the category of Mental then that
is news to
On 23.05.2012 19:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
There seems to be a divergence of definitions occurring. It might be
better for me to withdraw from philosophical discussions for a while
and focus just on mathematical questions, like the dependence on
order of a basis...
I
On 23.05.2012 20:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let us take terms like information, computation, etc. Are they
mental or mathematical?
Information is vague, and can be both.
Computation is mathematical, by using the Church
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html
Overview
This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the
foundations of computation in relation to nature.
It focuses on two main questions:
What is computation?
How does nature compute?
On 24.05.2012 09:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
nominalism that they are just notation and do not exist as such
independently from the mind.
But that distinction is usually made in the aristotelian context,
where some concrete
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is
one of possible positions.
What do you mean by my position? I
I have just finished reading Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans
and below there are a couple of comments to the book.
The book is similar to Jeffrey Gray's Consciousness: Creeping up on the
Hard Problem in a sense that it takes phenomenal consciousness
seriously. Let me give an
On 26.05.2012 07:57 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 5/26/2012 1:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html
Overview
This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the
foundations of computation
On 26.05.2012 21:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your
On 27.05.2012 23:04 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 5/27/2012 4:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
A good extension. Velmans does not consider such a case but he says
that the perceptions are located exactly where one perceives them.
In this case, it seems that it should not pose
On 28.05.2012 17:48 John Mikes said the following:
Evgenij: to your last par (small remark): (and I repeat the outburst
of a religious scientist upon my post questioning his 'faith'): Who
gave you the audacity to feel so superior to (some?) WORKING CLASS?
(I apologize: you seem to be only the
, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
Velmans introduces perceptual projection but this remains as the
Hard Problem in his book, how exactly perceptual projection
happens.
It does not make sense. This is doing Aristotle mistake twice.
Velmans contrast his model with reductionism
On 28.05.2012 22:42 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 28 May 2012, at 21:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I believe that this time I could say that you express your
position. For example in your two answers below it does not look
like I don't defend that position.
I don't think so. I
On 01.06.2012 19:19 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
...
Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled Free Will and from
the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very
little agreement as to what it
On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not,
that
my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any
determinative physical antecedent.
A belief that was enormously
On 01.06.2012 21:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and
neither do you.
John K Clark
Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but
that doesn't mean free will is a
On 06.06.2012 06:50 meekerdb said the following:
Here's your closest continuation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0Efeature=relmfu
Brent
Excellent. Thanks for the link.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is full of Popper's
methodology. Also one can find there a statement that the knowledge
exists objectively.
On the other hand, Maarten Hoenen in his lectures several times has
mentioned Popper's World 3. Interestingly enough that though Deutsch
I have started reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics and I see
one definition that seems to be pertinent to this discussion.
p. 27 Def. 4. To assume it to suppose by an act of free choice.
A person who 'makes an assumption' is making a supposition about which
he is aware that he might
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
emulations, depictions, replications, representations etc. of
observations of the physical universe and its processes.
This
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
emulations
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations
On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
...
Said that, I still see a computer in front of me (or a
computer cluster at work, well I do not see it there but
rather access but I
On 09.06.2012 20:39 David Nyman said the following:
On 9 June 2012 19:22, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
No, I have meant
a) simulated computer
b) simulated myself (but not in a)
Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some instructions
executed by some Turing machine. It seems
On 13.06.2012 18:24 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:57 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.06.2012 20:17 meekerdb said the following:
Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may
want to comment, since his conception of theology might answer
the questions put forward
In his book An Essay on Metaphysics in Part IIIc Causation, Collingwood
has considered what could mean that every event must have a cause. This
could be interesting for a discussion on free will, as Collingwood shows
that causation presupposes free will. In other words, if free will is to
be
On 17.06.2012 17:15 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs
that every event has a cause.
I don't know what you're talking about. Modern physics does not say
every
On 18.06.2012 16:39 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had
a cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity
and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?
I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have
followed
On 18.06.2012 21:56 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Monday, June 18, 2012 3:12:35 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Do you have a good definition of 'cause'?
Any change originating from beyond your own direct participation, ie,
the consequence of any motive other than your own
On 18.06.2012 23:53 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with
unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian
On 19.06.2012 09:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
..
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
I read a long time ago a book (La malle de Newton) which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have
to hide their idea since Rome,
On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I have many questions.
One is what if truth were malleable? --
HI Brian,
If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
standards of truth varied, how could we tell? This
On 26.06.2012 04:14 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/25/2012 6:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 2012 The modern phlogiston: why 'thinking machines'
don't need computers TheConversation. The Conversation media
Group.
1 - 100 of 619 matches
Mail list logo
