, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-16, 11:37:13
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/16/2012 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
But how could one know
-list
Time: 2012-11-15, 16:46:15
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ?
Hi Roger,
In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only
-15, 16:46:15
*Subject:* Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be
true ?
Hi Roger,
In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only
]
11/16/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-16, 07:25:39
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/16/2012 6:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-11-16, 07:25:39
*Subject:* Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/16/2012
content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 12:31:14
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things
On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ?
Hi Roger,
In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only if
there is no accessible possible world where a contraindication of the
agreement
P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:31:14
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't
P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:31:14
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't
@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-11-03, 13:31:14
*Subject:* Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't
On 11/5/2012 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, we must accept a truth, so in the end,
all truth is pragmatic. We must cast our own vote.
Dear Roger,
Are you familiar with Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:35:50
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 9:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Yes, Aristotle's substances and their properties do
. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 13:43:57
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/5/2012 1:17 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I have no problem with that, although
I do think that there are some eternal truths
external to those minds.
Dear Roger
Time: 2012-11-05, 13:51:48
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/5/2012 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, we must accept a truth, so in the end,
all truth is pragmatic. We must cast our own vote.
Dear Roger,
Are you familiar with Kenneth Arrow's
On 11/5/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, we must accept a truth, so in the end,
all truth is pragmatic. We must cast our own vote.
Dear Roger,
Are you familiar with Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:26:12
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
?? After I wrote the above I can see how you would think of properties as being
innate,
I meant independent of us. Not innate
at the center of its own universe.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/4/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:26:12
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 02 Nov 2012, at 20:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic?
Dear Bruno,
Why do you consider magic as a potential answer to your
question? After thinking about your question while I
On 11/3/2012 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The arithmetical property of numbers are innate to the numbers, logic
and the laws we assume.
Dear Bruno,
How? How are properties innate? This idea makes no sense to me, it
never has as it does not allow for any explanation of apprehension of
On 11/3/2012 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The arithmetical property of numbers are innate to the numbers, logic
and the laws we assume.
Hi,
This paper might be interesting to any one that would like to see a
nice discussion of who it is that we come to understand numbers:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The arithmetical property of numbers are innate to the numbers,
logic and the laws we assume.
Dear Bruno,
How? How are properties innate? This idea makes no sense to me,
it never has as it
. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 07:17:58
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The arithmetical property of numbers are innate to the numbers, logic
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 07:20:37
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/3/2012 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The arithmetical property of numbers are innate to the numbers, logic
and the laws we assume.
Hi,
This paper might be interesting to any one
...@verizon.net
11/3/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 08:22:27
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:17, Stephen P. King wrote
On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't be
contradicted (necessary truths).
Hi Roger,
I do not assume that the can't be contradicted is an a
On 11/3/2012 9:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Yes, Aristotle's substances and their properties do not change with time.
But Leibniz's do very rapidly. And they are individual to each substance,
meaning to each monad (from his aspect). The actual properties are
collective data of the universe.
Hi
On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic?
Dear Bruno,
Why do you consider magic as a potential answer to your question?
After thinking about your question while I was waiting to pick up my
daughter from school, it
function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 13:28:00
Subject: Re: Emergence
Hi Richard,
You mean provable statements not truths per se... I guess.
OK, I haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep
Godel's
P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 13:28:00
Subject: Re: Emergence
Hi Richard,
You mean provable statements not truths per se... I guess. OK, I
haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep Godel's theorems
reserved for special occasions. It has my experience
*Time:* 2012-08-23, 13:28:00
*Subject:* Re: Emergence
Hi Richard,
You mean provable statements not truths per se... I guess.
OK, I haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep
Godel's theorems reserved for special occasions. It has my
experience
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result
of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at
all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see
what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of
everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 12:48:51
Subject: Re: Emergence
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result
of inter-communications between monads
It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness.
Weak emergence is like your grains of sand.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of
Hi Richard,
Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence
Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property
is irreducible to its individual constituents.
OK, but irreducibility would have almost the same meaning as implying
the non-existence of relations
Stephan,
Strong emergence follows from Godel's incompleteness because in any
consistent system there are truths that cannot be derived from the axioms
of the system. That is what is meant by incompleteness.
Sounds like what you just said. No?
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stephen P.
Hi Richard,
You mean provable statements not truths per se... I guess. OK,
I haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep Godel's
theorems reserved for special occasions. It has my experience that they
can be very easily misapplied.
On 8/23/2012 1:24 PM, Richard Ruquist
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: emergence (or is that re-emergence)
Let me first apologize for not yet reading the mentioned references on
the subject,
John Mikes wrote:
As long as we cannot qualify the steps in a 'process' leading to the
emerged new, we call
Let me first apologize for not yet reading the mentioned references on
the subject,
John Mikes wrote:
As long as we cannot qualify the steps in a 'process' leading to the
emerged new, we call it emergence, later we call it process.
Just look back into the cultural past, how many
];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: emergence
John,
I can't remember whether you read my paper On Complexity and
Emergence in Complexity International a couple of years
ago. Basically, I think you are well on the mark, except I disagree
with you
39 matches
Mail list logo
