On 2/23/2011 7:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:06 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:06 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
Correct me if I am
1Z wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk
1Z wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:00 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk
On Feb 23, 4:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk
On Feb 23, 4:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Then God does not exist as an actor in the world, but God does still exists
as an idea.
1Z wrote:
1Z wrote:
something existing or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful
to use the word not,
On Feb 23, 3:02 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:06 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch
On Feb 18, 3:06 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we
agree on:
On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk
On Feb 18, 4:00 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we
agree on:
Consciousness is informational
No
There are more ways to have disorder than order
Yes
Bayesian reasoning is a good approach in matters
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we
agree on:
Consciousness is informational
No
There are more ways to have
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
On 2/18/2011 7:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:34:40PM -0800, 1Z wrote:
I am quite entitled to reject MUH until is has been found.
How will you know when it is found?
Bruno or Tegmrark or somebody will announce it.
I have already found it, announced it more than 10 years ago, and
published it in a peer
On 16 Feb 2011, at 22:36, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/16/2011 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
hat matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-
existent bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility.
Thus the concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of
contingency
On Feb 16, 10:58 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be
reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible
epiphenomena.
Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be
reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all
with your consciousness, so that IF comp is
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at
all
with your consciousness, so that IF comp is
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:06 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:58 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Comp will imply that such a
On Feb 17, 10:25 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:06 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:58 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch
On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
1Z wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
1Z wrote:
Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we
agree on:
Consciousness is informational
There are more ways to have disorder than order
Bayesian reasoning is a good approach in matters of truth
The universe could be a second old, and we would have no way of
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with synasthesia
apparently perceive numbers as having various
On 15 Feb 2011, at 20:22, 1Z wrote:
I want to say number aren't real, so I'm not really a number
All your talk about numbers which are not real seems to me
nonsensical. Also you seems to know what is real and what is not
real,
Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know
On 15 Feb 2011, at 20:25, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
In science we never know if our premisses and conclusions are
true or
not.
I can still resist the conclusion by *believing* Platonism
to be false, while
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with
On Feb 16, 8:46 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 20:22, 1Z wrote:
I want to say number aren't real, so I'm not really a number
All your talk about numbers which are not real seems to me
nonsensical. Also you seems to know what is real and what is not
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z
On 16 Feb 2011, at 16:17, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:46 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 20:22, 1Z wrote:
I want to say number aren't real, so I'm not really a number
All your talk about numbers which are not real seems to me
nonsensical. Also you seems to
On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker
On Feb 16, 5:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Feb 2011, at 16:17, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:46 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 20:22, 1Z wrote:
I want to say number aren't real, so I'm not really a number
All your talk about numbers
On 16 Feb 2011, at 18:41, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 2/16/2011 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
hat matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-
existent bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility.
Thus the concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of
contingency or somethingism -- the idea that only certain
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM,
On 2/14/2011 4:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 14 Feb 2011, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/14/2011 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent
On 15 February 2011 00:42, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've tried to argue before that the causal closure of physics is a
very strong claim that is also very restrictive if applied
consistently. Trouble is, in my view, it very rarely is so applied.
The Hard Problem, and the corresponding
On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:53, 1Z wrote:
CT needs arithmetical platonism/realism.
No it doesn't. It may need bivalence, which is not the same thing (me,
passim)
Reread the definition of AR. I define AR by bivalence.
If you believe the contrary,
could you give me a form of CT which does not
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then
On 15 February 2011 13:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not a realist about maths. You must be because you exist
and you think you are a number
I start from the assumption that I can survive through a digital backup. So
locally I am a number, in that sense. But this concerns
On Feb 15, 12:56 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 00:42, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've tried to argue before that the causal closure of physics is a
very strong claim that is also very restrictive if applied
consistently. Trouble is, in my view, it
On Feb 15, 1:16 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:53, 1Z wrote:
CT needs arithmetical platonism/realism.
No it doesn't. It may need bivalence, which is not the same thing (me,
passim)
Reread the definition of AR. I define AR by bivalence.
Fine. Then it
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach
On Feb 15, 1:54 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 13:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not a realist about maths. You must be because you exist
and you think you are a number
I start from the assumption that I can survive through a digital
On 15 Feb 2011, at 01:42, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/14/2011 11:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Programs are not written with physical instantiation in mind...
even if eventually you run it.
Really? Did people write programs before computers were invented?
If you abstract from Babbage
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:09, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:16 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:53, 1Z wrote:
CT needs arithmetical platonism/realism.
No it doesn't. It may need bivalence, which is not the same thing
(me,
passim)
Reread the definition of AR. I
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
In science we never know if our premisses and conclusions are
true or
not.
I can still resist the conclusion by *believing* Platonism
to be false, while believing comp to be true.
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51
2011/2/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal
On 2/15/2011 12:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal
On Feb 15, 8:39 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 12:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 7:28 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23,
On 2/15/2011 1:01 PM, 1Z wrote:
The difference is I can choose what are/who are/the behavior of...
Sherlock holmes/pink unicorn/whatever... not the numbers once an
axiomatic system is chosen.
No, it's only a difference of degree. You can't choose Sherlock Holmes
to be an
On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Whatever question you can
ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or
how to find it...numbers are wholly defined by a set of axioms, it seems that
they are more real than fictional characters.
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Whatever question you can
ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or
how to find it...numbers are wholly defined by a set of axioms, it seems that
On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Whatever question you can
ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or
how to find
On 14 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What do you think the chances are that any random object in
Plato's
On 11 Feb 2011, at 19:10, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Feb 2011, at 23:58, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:29 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Feb 14, 6:50 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps humans are merely
severely disabled when it comes to seeing and feeling the mathematical
reality and our deficit in seeing this reality is much the same as an ant's
poor vision prevents it from making out a mountain vista.
On Feb 14, 7:24 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
enough for the comp consequences.,
Nope. Bivalence can be accepted as a formal rule and therefore
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
enough for the comp consequences.,
Nope. Bivalence can be
On 14 Feb 2011, at 12:13, 1Z wrote:
Thing that aren't real can't have real properties, but
hypothetical things have hypothetical properties
You talk like if you knew what is real. Do you agree that the
existence of primary matter can only be an hypothesis? A useful
simplifying
On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/14/2011 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent
On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
you 7 doesn't exist.
Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't exist, in an
analogous sense? And that consequently any computational
characterisation of the mental is in
On Feb 14, 10:16 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Feb 2011, at 19:10, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Feb 2011, at 23:58, 1Z
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which
On Feb 14, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 12:13, 1Z wrote:
Thing that aren't real can't have real properties, but
hypothetical things have hypothetical properties
You talk like if you knew what is real.
I only have to know what real means.
Do you
2011/2/14 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this,
On Feb 14, 6:21 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
you 7 doesn't exist.
Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't exist, in an
analogous sense?
I can
2011/2/14 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 14, 6:21 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 12:35, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
you 7 doesn't exist.
Wouldn't this then imply that computation also doesn't
On 14 February 2011 19:32, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
If you have a physical token running a computation, you have
a computation. What is eliminated?
But such talk is all a posteriori and hence merely circular. A
priori, if you claim that reality can be reduced to (i.e. actually
David,
I was laughing all the way from the computer that '7 does not exist'. And
yes, it does not.
Do qualia exist without the substrate they serve for as qualia?
It goes into our deeper thought to identify 'existing' -
I am willing to go as far as if our mind handles it, 'it' DOES exist
so the
On 14 February 2011 20:46, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked several times: what are numbers? without getting a reasonable
reply.
Sometimes I really like 1Z's twists.
That may be, but I would also like to see if we can get things
untwisted. I'm not peddling any theory of my own
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
On Feb 14, 8:07 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 19:32, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
If you have a physical token running a computation, you have
a computation. What is eliminated?
But such talk is all a posteriori and hence merely circular.
That the
On Feb 14, 11:08 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 20:46, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I asked several times: what are numbers? without getting a reasonable
reply.
Sometimes I really like 1Z's twists.
That may be, but I would also like to see if we
On Feb 15, 12:12 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM,
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What do you think the chances are that any random object in
Plato's heaven, or any random Turing machine will support intelligent life?
1 in 10, 1 in 1000, 1 in a billion?
Zero.
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What do you think the chances are that any random object in
Plato's heaven, or any random Turing machine will
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:46 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 9:05 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/12 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/11 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
2011/2/12 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/11 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal
On Feb 12, 9:05 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/12 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 11:50 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/11 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Feb 2011, at
On Feb 10, 1:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Feb 2011, at 16:49, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:17 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Feb 2011, at 23:58, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:29 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Peter,
Everything is fine. You
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
