This is fun!
http://youtu.be/EJsD-3jtXz0?t=24m16s
It exist!
--
Onward!
Stephen
I apologize in advance for the gross errors that this post
and all of my posts will contain. ;-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Dear Bruno,
Any comments on this?
http://www.colyvan.com/papers/Maddy.pdf
--
Onward!
Stephen
I apologize in advance for the gross errors that this post
and all of my posts will contain. ;-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
http://io9.com/you-ll-probably-never-upload-your-mind-into-a-computer-474941498
--
Onward!
Stephen
I apologize in advance for the gross errors that this post
and all of my posts will contain. ;-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
? It
assumes too much power in its implications.
2013/3/23 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
In 1936 Tarski proved a fundamental theorem of logic:
the *undefinability of truth*. Roughly speaking, this says
there's no consistent way to extend
On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
By the way, regulation only protects us from accessing effective
treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
explore.
Telmo.
At what point does the regulation become only a means to suppress
innovation?
--
Onward!
On 3/24/2013 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
simply wishful thinking?
We can already listen to the ideally correct machines on this. They
already grasp UDA and provides the solution in the shape of a
theology, in the greek
On 3/24/2013 3:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 12:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:13:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 18:44, Craig Weinberg
On 3/24/2013 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:15:53 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/24/2013 3:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 12:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 3/22/2013 7:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in
Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality
p. 133 Ray Kurzweil believes that intelligent machines will be more
spiritual than human being and believes that the future will
On 3/22/2013 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
simply wishful thinking?
I share this question!
2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru
Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions
On 3/22/2013 9:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Craig,
Thanks for this.
On a somewhat related note, TED recently censured two talks by Rupert
Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of
classifying their claims as pseudo-science. I find this disturbing
because they are just
On 3/22/2013 1:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
The following article about Quantum Computers was on page one of the
business section of today's New York Times:
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Our digital age is all about bits, those
precise ones and zeros that are the stuff of modern
On 3/22/2013 2:20 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham
Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of
classifying their claims as
be a warning
for atheists who fight with Church and forget to check what one
can find among AI studies.
Evgenii
2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru
On 22.03.2013 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following
On 3/22/2013 3:27 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/22/2013 4:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in
Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality
p. 133 Ray Kurzweil believes that intelligent machines will be more
spiritual than human
On 3/22/2013 4:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/22/2013 6:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/2013 11:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic
claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
of junk science!
I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but
In 1936 Tarski proved a fundamental theorem of logic:
the *undefinability of truth*. Roughly speaking, this says there's no
consistent way to extend arithmetic so that it talks about 'truth' for
statements about arithmetic. Why not? Because if we /could/, we could
cook up a statement that says
On 3/21/2013 3:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 22:14 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said
On 3/21/2013 7:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.03.2013 12:20 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/21/2013 3:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 22:14 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said
...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 02:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
Are physical computers truly universal Turing Machines? No!
They do not have infinite tape, not precise read/write heads.
They are subject to noise and error.
The infinite tape
On 3/21/2013 6:04 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But still, I tend to bet that creativity, if he can exploit it, is still
independent of it.
I still find it
On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
I think it likely that the first applications will be providing
soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just as AI
research has been funded by the military. Threats of war are often
used to
On 3/20/2013 6:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176
He starts off with a straightforward, materialist position
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
...
I see a bit of irony in the fact that people who believe in
physical reality often call to
On 3/20/2013 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
I think it likely that the first applications will be providing
soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just
On 3/20/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex
On 3/20/2013 9:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:32 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases
Hi Folks,
I apologize for crossforwarding a post, but this one is too good to
not...
Original Message
Subject:Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:23:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Timothy Y. Chow tc...@alum.mit.edu
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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,
On 3/19/2013 6:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Of course it works in the sense that the selected theory will save the
facts, because you only consider theories that are not contradicted by
the facts - and if you are fortunate enough to have more than one,
then you consider Occams razor and esthetic
On 3/16/2013 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2013, at 20:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
No, I think that you haven't understood it,
That's because you are only working with a straw man of me. What is it
that you think
On 3/15/2013 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2013, at 23:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
This is a nice lecture by Johan van Benthem that covers the kind of
approach that I am trying to use in my critique of comp:
http://videolectures.net/esslli2011_benthem_logic
On 3/15/2013 1:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Craig thinks his theory mind is perfectly compatible with physics
because he thinks physics is different from what all those stupid
physicists think it is. They just don't know about
Dear Bruno,
This is a nice lecture by Johan van Benthem that covers the kind of
approach that I am trying to use in my critique of comp:
http://videolectures.net/esslli2011_benthem_logic/ It gives a nice
alternative to the concept of a universal Platonic Mind or secular God
to whom all
On 3/13/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2013, at 18:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/12/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/12/2013 8:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have found a paper that seems
On 3/13/2013 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2013, at 19:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
I suspect that we need to look at the associativity properties of the
algebra as per Kevin Knuth's work: http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881
Really interesting, but hard to directly used
Dear Richard,
You might find this paper interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1832
Most of my questions are about the non-constructible CY four-folds...
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Hi,
I agree with 99% of the following. From: http://www.capurro.de/trialog.htm
Is there any possibility of a unified theory of information which
includes Capurro's trilemma as a constituent element of it, and not as
something to be eliminated or solved? Well, this is a difficult
question.
Dear Bruno,
I have found a paper that seems to cover most of my thoughts about the
arithmetic body problem:
Models of axiomatic theories admitting automorphisms
by A. Ehrenfeucht A. Mostowski
http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm43/fm4316.pdf
More on related concepts are found in the
confi guration matrices compared to only 7890
for the 3-folds.
Richard
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Dear Richard,
You might find this paper interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1832
Most of my questions are about the non
On 3/12/2013 8:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have found a paper that seems to cover most of my thoughts about the
arithmetic body problem:
Models of axiomatic theories admitting automorphisms
by A. Ehrenfeucht A. Mostowski
http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm43
in a countable language is finite or ℵ0 or 2ℵ0
That is, finite, countable (integers Aleph_0) or uncountable (2^aleph_0
or aleph_1 as in the Real numbers).
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have found a paper that seems
On 3/12/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Mar 2013, at 22:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
OK
On 3/12/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/12/2013 8:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have found a paper that seems to cover most of my thoughts
about the
arithmetic body problem:
Models of axiomatic theories
On 3/12/2013 1:54 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Let me refine my concerns a bit. Is there a method to consider the
Vaught conjecture on finite lattice approximations of Polish spaces?
Please relate all this, as formally as in the Ehrenfeucht Mostowski
paper, to what has already been solved
On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
To ask a machine about herself (like
On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences),
you need to represent the machine in the language available
On 3/9/2013 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/8/2013 2:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Terren Suydam wrote:
Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think our
immediate failure to solve that problem
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being
On 3/8/2013 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Stephen,
What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a
meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme.
That's an excellent question. I suspect a scheme might not be
necessary to infer the presence of meaning, but what I'm
... the mind
boggles! We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless
and doubly so!
2013/3/8 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
Hi,
What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a
meaningful message? The correct
On 3/8/2013 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not
logically inconsistent with consciousness.
I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical
mechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself.
? (that seems
100%.
2013/3/8 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 3/8/2013 7:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you
receive in your phone a message describing where is the next
source of water
On 3/8/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. This is why computations are exactly describable as strings...
It is less wrong to say that description of computation can be denoted
with string. Computation themselves are not strings. They are sequence
of states related by some universal
On 3/8/2013 3:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, you know my aversion against random: it is a disorderly
sequence the origination of which is not (yet?) disclosed to us -
usually excluded from our ordinate view of nature since it deprives
the prediction according to the so far derived
On 3/8/2013 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013 1:35:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2013, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:19:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2013, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Hi,
Is the following a sound claim?
...scientifically meaningful propositions are questions about the past,
the present, the future, or the eternal laws that:
* might in principle be both false and true
* admit a method, at least in principle, to evaluate their truth values.
--
On 3/8/2013 11:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
Is the following a sound claim?
...scientifically meaningful propositions are questions about the
past, the present, the future, or the eternal laws that:
* might in principle be both false and true
* admit a method, at least
On 3/9/2013 1:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
who would vow never to change their views?
The religious faithful.
Dear John,
Could you consider the possibility that the religiously faithful
On 3/9/2013 1:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually
figure it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and
unclog the toilet.
On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:59:50 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: By
the definition I gave above a stone does not choose to roll down
the hill because it does not consider each option in order to
decide which one to do.
Why doesn't it
On 3/7/2013 10:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:59:50 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
By the definition I gave above a stone does not choose
On 3/7/2013 10:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:43:06 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 10:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote
On 3/7/2013 11:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I have no doubt that Craig will somehow see this as a vindication of
his theory and a refutation of mechanism.
Terren
I wonder if you think that the cat's name is Pavlov?
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 3/7/2013 11:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I have no doubt that Craig will somehow see this as a vindication of
his theory and a refutation of mechanism.
Terren
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
https
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP, Citrix Metaframe,
or the like (and that's what I have been doing professionally every
day for the last 14 years), you will understand the idea of a Thin
Client architecture. Thin clients are as old
On 3/7/2013 4:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 08/03/2013, at 2:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical
mechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself.
There
On 3/7/2013 5:45 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP, Citrix
Metaframe, or the like (and that's what I have been doing
professionally every day for the last 14 years
On 3/7/2013 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:21:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP, Citrix
Metaframe,
or the like (and that's what I have been doing
recognition.
Terren
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 3/7/2013 11:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I have no doubt that Craig will somehow see this as a vindication
of his theory and a refutation of mechanism
On 3/7/2013 7:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2013 3:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:45:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP
On 3/7/2013 7:54 PM, meekerdb wrote:
What I am exploring is a dual aspect theory that allows for minds
to act on bodies and bodies to act on minds in a symmetric way.
How is this any different than saying mind is what a brain does. They
physical processes of the brain and the psychological
this puzzle out
than spar with you over who has the best explanation. ;-)
Terren
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 3/7/2013 6:09 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
The same way it explains it for humans. The cat
On 3/7/2013 10:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I'm game. Which puzzle are we figuring out?
A solution to Bruno's 'arithmetic body problem'.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 3/7/2013 9:14 PM, Terren Suydam
and Ben Goertzel's ideas. I am
interested in applications http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnd-hdmgfk. ;-)
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 3/7/2013 10:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I'm game. Which puzzle are we
possible measure. I am not a mathematician, sadly...
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 3/7/2013 11:37 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think
our immediate
Hi,
What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a
meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 3/6/2013 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is
of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old
Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a
real human being not something a computer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=CcXXQ6GCUb8
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is
of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old
Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a
real human
On 3/5/2013 6:23 AM, advancedguida...@list.ru wrote:
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:15 PM UTC+2, advanced...@list.ru wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote
On 3/5/2013 3:03 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig,
You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point
in time forward
the automaton reacts to acceptable information all on its own.
You contradict yourself -- - I don't think it has to be human --
machines only help
Is a red shift a possible effect of Lag Synch in the limit of many
pair-wise coupled chaotic systems??
http://144.206.159.178/ft/847/47281/13813187.pdf
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 3/3/2013 12:37 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi,
When Bruno claims that physics can be derived from the UD, would a
proof of that represent, on some level, a (partial) solution to the
measure problem?
Terren
--
Hi Terren,
It would seem so, or more accurately the other-way around. I just
On 3/3/2013 10:11 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Stephen,
That's a nice read but written under the materialist assumption so
doesn't really apply to my question.
Terren
Hi Terren,
Hummm, I can translate it in my mind over to the dual...
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Stephen P
translate it in my mind over to the dual...
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 3/3/2013 12:37 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi,
When Bruno claims that physics can be derived from the UD
is ontologically primitive.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure how a paper that assumes
physics can say anything about how physics might emerge from arithmetic.
On Mar 3, 2013 2:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe
On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still
On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it
is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to
mere
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not
not Y then X is gibberish,
X = alcohol Y = poison.
becomes
On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?
The UD is not a set.
Dear Bruno,
Why are you such a literalist?Are the strings that make up the
UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra?
But doing some effort to translate what
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?
The UD is not a set.
Dear Bruno,
Why are you such a literalist?
Don't use technical
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely
complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured
from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean.
Hi Bruno,
Sigma_1 logic is more powerful than Boolean
On 2/26/2013 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the
existence of Time as Fundamental?
In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so
On 2/25/2013 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know.
How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our
1 - 100 of 1638 matches
Mail list logo
