Bruno, sorry for taking it jokingly (ref: Steinhart):
Latest research revealed that Shakespeare's oeuvre was not written by William
Shakespeare, but by quite another man named William Shakespeare.
John
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.
Will the conference be limited to that technically embryonic gadget - maybe
even on a binary bases - we use with that limited software-input in 2006? a
Turing machine?
John M
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List"
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 200
quot;Turing un-emulable".
Your explanation about the ZF uncountability and the uncomputability is
intgeresting, I could not yet digest its meaning as how it may be pertinent
to my thinking.
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/low-skol.htm>>=Copy of my
"lost?" note to Marc (Bov.3 - 6:59AM):Marc,I do
not argue with 'your half' of the 'answer' you gave to the conference
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the &#
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
Le 05-nov.-06, à 00:47, John M a écrit :
>
>
Addition to my "lost and found" 1st post in this topic to
Marc:
I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the " IS
"?
*
I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question.
Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
(Not Descartes' s "I think th
I hope this will go through..
Colin wrote"
--- Colin Geoffrey Hales
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Addition to my "lost and found" 1st post in this
> topic to
> > Marc:
> >
> > I wonder how would you define besides 'universe'
> and 'computer' the "
> > IS
> > "?
> > *
> > I ag
test, disregard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 email to [EMAIL P
copied new address
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 email to [EMAI
Colin,
I just remembered in a recent post to another list that ~15 years ago -
thinking of what many think as 'consckiousness', I boiled down to
'acknowledgement and response to information', (which I identified rather as
perceived difference and not the meaningles 'bit'), with the notion that
This is a testing of my mail. Over the p[ast week I received back every
attempt in various modes to get a post into (my?) list-mail. I receive
others all right, not what I try to post.
Yhis 'reply' is to a monsterp-post of Brent all erased ut kept the
reply-form and using it for posting.
Pleas
See below, please
John
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
>
>>
>> Addition to my "lost and found" 1st post in this topic to
>> Marc:
Amen
John
- Original Message -
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:48 AM
Subject: RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Brent Meeker writes:
.
> >
> Seems like "faith" to me - belief without or contrary to evidence. What
> is the "x"
Bruno:
a beautiful position statement. Very sage and humane.
Thanks
John
PS: unfortunately the overwhelming majority of humankind is within some kind
of religious belief system and this makes a very lucrative political stock
to crooks (oops: politicians, as contrasted to 'statesmen). Some thous
Stathis,
1. Finding something that is worse does not make a bad thing good. (I
derived that in the US recent election's 'schmier'-campaign: proving that
the 'other' candidate is a crook does not make the 'prover' electable)
2. those 'intellectual achievements' in the US are done by a quite
negl
Stathis,
I enjoy your (Brent, Bruno, etc.) religion-class.
What you quoted about prayer, is in the ballpark of what I say always,
except for the addition: 'does what was to be done anyway'. IOW: he doesn't
care.
Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a god after the worst human
char
See please interspaced remarks " (JM)" as well.
General addition I would start with:
"In our present views, based on the limited capabilities of the mind-brain
activity we can only muster for the time being..."
(Our mental event-horizon reaches only so far)
John
- Original Message -
From
Stathis,
no need to argue with me about my 'funny' supposition (just for the fun of
it) - HOWEVER:
1. "absolutely certain" you can be in whatever is in your mind (i.e.in your
belief system) because that is what you call it so.
Colin's (weak?) solipsism assignes the world -(all of its input-
Stathis: thanks for the psichiatry class.
You brought in a new questionmark: "crazy". As George Levy has proven, we
all are crazy - my contention was: in that case such (general) craziness is
the norm, eo ipso we all are normal.
Is normalcy composed of delusions?
Then why the (p)scientific id
some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical)
interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical
truth).
I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor.
Bruno
Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit :
>
> Bruno:
> How far Occident? Quetzealcoa
I unsubdscribe from the 'everything-list'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Mikes
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
27; and not without including WITH the 'materially' explained features an extended form of mentality - the ideation also including phenomena callable 'inanimate').
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent
Hal,
so yhou look at it... (at what?) - anyway from the standpoint of the 'physical' model.
Can you come closer totell what you are 'looking at'?
Happy 2007!
John M
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, Decem
not. I survived a commi regime.
We seem too narrowly labeling a "slave".
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: computer pain
Bruno Marchal writes:
> Le 30-déc.
--- James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 03-janv.-07, à 16:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote
(in more than one
> posts) :
>
> > Maudlin starts off with the assumption that a
recording being
> > conscious is obviously absurd, hence the need
for the conscious
> >
cence is part of it, change
is not only 'addition', it is by 'streamlining' also
eliminating design-aspects all the way to destructing
the 'original' design. In a world-dynamism. Complexly.
John M
Mark Peaty writes:
> Brent: 'However, all that is needed for t
lk what we don't understand to begin
with. So much about infinite wisdom, infinite love, eternity etc.
John M
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date: 1/6/2007
--~--~-~--~
e excerpt from your preceding post copied below your
post.
Have a good day, my friend
John
- Original Message -
From: James N Rose
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
John,
You made excellent po
Interleaving in bold
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM
Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)
Tom Caylor writes:
---SKIP
>
Stathis Papaioannou:
Peop
Brent:
I wonder if I can make a readable sense of this rather convoluted mix of posts?
I suggest the original should be at hand, I copy only the parts I reflect to.
My previous post quoted remarks go by a plain JM, the present (new) inclusions
as "JMnow paragraphs.
J
Stathis: wise words. (I find your Elvis - Jesus parable exaggerated).
Values, like ethics or morale is culture related - mostly anti-natural. The
natural way of life is "eat the prey, animal and/or plant", kick out a
competitor from your territory, once the lion killed the weaker male: eat his
l
model (system). And you mention 'Universe" - I
prefer plenitude, from which arose the multiverse in its unlimited variety of
universes. It's only semantic.
What is that 'spacetime' you mention? I know it 'has' a fabric, but otherwise I
consider i
tical figures, but social (marital?) pressure keeps lots of people as
churchgoers from the many millions that don't go. Even in countries of an
'official' state-religion.
Finally:
"... in fact they all claim that they are immune from test. This is where they
fail in th
- "Evil".
With best regards your voodoo expert
John
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Evil ?
John M wrote:
> Brent,
> sorry if I irritated you - that
fied 'creator' (approximate paraphrasing), why can we
not stop there and speak about 'the world' only?
(Meaning: isn't one level of unknowable enough?)
Of course that rang the bell of pantheism.
I skip the rest of the 'rock-physics'.
Regards
John M
--
-
> From: Brent Meeker<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Evil ?
> John M wrote:
> > Brent,
> > sorry if I irrit
Stathis:
I will not go that far, nor draw 'magnificent' conclusion about conscious rocks
(I am not talking about the unconscious hysteria of the rhytmic crowd-noise of
teenage immaturity - call them rolling or non-rolloing STONES), - I just try
to call the state of being conscious an effective
Brent, interleaving
John
--- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John M wrote:
> Dear Stathis:
> my answer to your quewstion:
> Of course not!
> There is a belief systems "I" like and there are
the others I don't.
> I just maintain a (maybe
of
agnosticism and atheism.
Let D = the proposition "God exists", "~" = NOT, B = believes.
An agnostic is someone for which the proposition "~BD" is true. (And "~B~D"
could be true as well)
An atheist is someone for which "B~D" is true.
The a
Jamie,
since BHs are figments of Hawkins' et al. imagination
for 'something there must be', we can 'imagine' that
something so as to bounce back those photons (you
believe in) INSIDE once they got in and this is the
reason why the darn blob is black.
Imagination should not be constrained to ima
Dear Jason,
what William wrote is "the best" we, humans in 2007AD can find out for the
subject matter. Before 1922 (Hubble's redshift) of course "the best" was
different. Before...and so on. Considering "the best" of 2325AD...???
Your applause is similarly dated.
Is Mother Nature (or call her a
Or of comp, or of multiple universes, or of.
(the list is almost unlimitable).
"Proving" is tricky. In many cases SOME accept the backwards argument from
phenomena "assigned" to an originating assumption that is now deemed "proven"
by it.
Some don't. It depends on evidence in one's personal
Stathis:
your concluding sentence is
" But my brain just won't let me think this way."
*
Have you been carried away?
Who is "your brain" to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only that the
mechanism of your brain, the main tool "YOU" use in mental activity, is not
predesigned for such act
Stathis:
interesting. See my additional question after your reply
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
John Mikes writes:
> Stathis:
> you
Stathis,
maybe it is a postulate that (in my mind) what you write does not make sense?
A Cc generated/operated by tissue - partially transferred to parts unknown
without (the?) tissue and still functions? I am a simpleminded primitive
peasant, cannot condone that you, a 'thinking' person (no
Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up your
vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry.
*
You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even postulate
one variable needed.
How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec? Even if it
y
unique.
We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no
reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody "fully understands" what other listers write, even if
one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re
g ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we
should give it another try.
Hal Ruhl
At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody "fully understands" what other listers write, even
if one thinks so.
Or is it only my han
By who's logic?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Torgny Tholerus
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
s multiverse BY the
'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I allow a 'small'
complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this I violate my scepticism
against the Big Bang fable - and consider our universe from BB to dissipation,
the entire history, as ev
etimes I start an argument about a "different" (questionable?) belief just
to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty
way.
I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: eve
r it.
With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state "it is
impossible" because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what they please.
The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, blow up, beat
or burn live human beings in that &#x
your skills, professor.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Jason Resch
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List
ALL steps of processes
(what is a process???) live side by side together.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno:
I was using some of the main com
is no way to 'mend' the ozone hole and recover the pollution-killed
marine life in many seas.
Backward!
Start the teleportation.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Paul King
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject
uter cannot go beyond it either.
The brain does.
So our model-simulation is just that: a limited model.
Are we ready for surprizes?
John M
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List&q
a', especially when carrying a "Q-name". I
can relate to both of yours remarks.
( Theists etc. just wanted to ride that horse in the past. )
The wording that emerges in talks about metaphysics is a mixture of the ancient
denigration and the up-to-date ideas. Is it still fruitful to
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
(Brent wrote):
"The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole
complicated uni
7 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February
Stathis,
you argued 'my points' in your usual eloquence. What you missed IMO:
the 'seeming rationality' of the pro-Q'ran argument is in the rationality (?)
of the faithful mindset. It starts from premises as 'truth' what you would
question. "I" find your position reasonable and OK for our mino
of Hell. ("Brimstone" requires oxygen, to burn - at
least in THIS universe.)
John M
Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
The only connection I c
to speculate
about identifying what constitutes a 'different belief system', but 'system'
must be more than just shades of individual differentiation in the details.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
S
vote.
And I love the humor of G. Carlin.
So what else is new?
Have a good day
John
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Believing ...
John M wrote:
> Brent,
>
Breent
your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a non-IndoEuropean
mothertongue - in English.
I wrote:
>"...by building further levels on unfounded
> assumptions - no matter how fit they may be > to a theory we favor...<
you wrote:
>You imply that our theories are just a matter of
l' judgment and I feel
open to my doing so. Not because the 'authority' of the 'other' view.
*
You touched a sensitive point: what is 'science' and which one? compendium of
explanations? Quatizing the qualia? (to be facetious: digitalizing the analog?)
John M
ntasy, sci-fi, religion.
What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the
conventionally outlined "scientific method".
John M
--- 明迪 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear John Mikes.
>
> I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only
> to 1 part of yo
Stathis:
your starting the argument: "IF" the M-W-I(dea) is valid, it it seems to
imply"...which is a bit shaky (what if not?) - the "law-like" is a breakable
compromise between confro nting arguments. Do I read some denigration of the
White Rabbit? (coming from a wide interpretation of "all pos
atement "we can reach to items later
or equal to origination-point."
I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement.
Mindaugas Indriunas
On 3/5/07, John M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
what I meant consists of the world
27;s COMB to
remove the added conclusions upon assumptions.
No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Eviden
s' in a
personal relationship with any god-phantom halucination based on ANY selective
hearsay assumption, you cannot make him accept (substitute) a scientific'
scrutiny. (I may elaborate on selective, hearsay, and assumption, if I must).
*
I would be happy to see an expansion of
erent.
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb
question.
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
I don'
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge.
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> In the sci-
Thanks for a clear mind, Bruno. But isn't it obvious? We can "know" about what
we don't know ONLY if we do know 'about it'. Copernicus did not know that he
does not know radioactivity. Aristotle did not denigrate the linearity of QM
because he did not know these items.
My 'firm' knowledge of m
good idea in this topic, yet I
consider it scale-oriented, an infinitesimally close in 1000 orders of
magnitude smaller scale can be 'miles' away. (No 'real' miles implied) -
Best regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Torgny Tholerus
To: everything-list@googlegro
regarded as a model of whatever our epistemic enrichment has provided to THAT
time. This is the 'reducing': to visualize this part as the total and utter
the Aristotelian maxim.
One can not extrapolate 'total ensemble' characteristics from studying the so
called part
int of another form of 'science'.
The above is not my obsession, I see it as free thinking.
*
Bruno, I looked at your 'knots' (my head still spins from them) and agree to
their topological - math view, no need of a material input. Which one was
Alexander's?
Be
> negative.
> Well, it seems those non-physicists are simpleminded brutes. It felt so good
> to 'invent' something (for fun) beyond our grasp.
> What nature would that 3rd pole present in the strong force? (I ask this
> question, because I did not read about the 3
lex. Luv is a composition. Not a primitive
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PRO
case,
there is a rule to reduce most if not all of the cellular automata
rules, since it actually produces all the cellular automata that we
know :-).with the initial state that we do not know, we could try to
find the world produced by an even simpler rule, that eventually
produces the
ity turns into quality
and increasing the info-basis MAY(?) result in also smarter understganding -
i.e. better wisdom.
So I put on hold my regret for the greatgrandkids for now.
Regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.co
. Colin's limited solipsism is one obstacle. We know what we
know about, compose our 'world' accordingly.
Experiencing is also tricky: it may refer to a 'first', an AHA, but it may be
the series of acknowledging again and again something already known.
Experiencing the
we can compute to fit into our order.
Random? ditto. Chaos? what we cannot (today) assign to already discovered - YES
- order.
I give some credence to our ignorance (epistemically still undiscovered
parts).
We choose our 'models' to be studied/observed according to our knowledge of
ologistic version has its audience, but so has the wider sense as
well.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker &
uot;atoothfairyist" - not 'agnostic'
- like: "atheist". (Unless you believe in 'something like that' to exist).
An agnostic "is not sure" but does not deny the existence FOR SURE.
The difference, as I feel, between "I don't know&
it is) are still "responding to the information you get: you wake up
to the alarm clock, or from unconsciousness. There are different 'levels' to be
included into that noumenon.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
nsions.
And let me skip my retrograde series of going through (the) other concepts...
They are all deductions from the (as you put it) primitive material world view,
and its closed model, called "physics". At the end of my 'skipped' series you
may find 'numbers'
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
"we are" (thing-wise) -
the term less static, rather process-wise:
"We do" (in whatever action)?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
world and uncountable others in a less
nausiating way.
And yes, you may call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR
mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. Not sitting
as an old man on cloud.
John M
: Original Message -
Bruno, those 'idealistic' definitions from Leibnitz and Descartes are not
experienced in -
- what is called usually as "science". Look at the "Laws" of physics, does
engineering doubt them? The statements of 'logic', arithmetic, etc. etc. are
all " believed" as FIRM laws. Now that is what I call
Stathis:
let me keep only your reply-part and ask my question(s):
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PR
versa.
I appreciate Bruno's inadvertent "if we accept UD/comp" etc.etc. formula. Hard
to beat, especially since so far there is NO successfully applicable (not even
a dreamed-up) alternative developed sufficiently into a hopeful replacement for
the many millennia evolved
, that's
we love" pragmatism. I am irresponsible enough to allow speculative conditional
fantasy.
Of course only into my 'narrative'. But IMO advancement needs a free
unrestricted mind and includes fantastic ideas.
Right or wrong. And of course I am not certain myself.
John
x27;physical' figment of our explanatory sequence in
learning about the world).
My ramblings conclude into: it all may be right (in conditional). My criticism
aims at triggering (teasing?) better arguments. So are my questions.
Best regards
John M
- Original Message -
F
Dear Bruno, allow me to interleave below as [JM]: remarks.
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Speaking about "Mathematicalism"
Le 09-avr.-07, à 16:40, John
Bruno,
addendum to my post before. You wrote:
BM:
But ok, you are just arguing for the non-comp assumption.
[JM]:
No, I just speak about 'another type' comp, a non-digital contraption that
handles meaning, function, without the crutches of the (hypothetical? at least
unidentified) numbers - thos
Jason:
your idea sounds sound. I wonder if it is not a variation of the situation
according to which "in facto" there is only ONE outcome under given
circumstances of the actual OM, but we have the creativity of imagining more
than just the one that occurs?
I formulated this when I did not like
to all:
since I missed hundreds of posts in this list - now
extremely proliferous and sweeping through "subjects"
making backtracking a bore,
do we have an agreement on
WHAT do we call an EVENT? Also: To OBSERVE?
In my lay common sense I am inclined to call a step in
a change an event, and the
I salute Lee's new subject designation.
I believe if we are up to identifying concepts with
common sense content as well, we should not restrict
ourselves into the model-distinctions of (any) physics
but generalize the meanings beyond such restrictions.
Of course: I am no physicist. My apologies.
d very limited items we already discovered
from our "mind".
"Living" I use instead of "human", of course. But that
comes from my generalization trend of terms beyond our
human only pretension.
To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already
HAVE discovered what
1 - 100 of 409 matches
Mail list logo
