On 13 Aug 2015, at 14:33, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 4:35:06 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
I think JC resoinded to
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 4:35:06 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> I think JC resoinded to Brent:
>>
>> *"I don
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The quantization of space time has no need to extend to the mathematical
> space used to evaluate the amplitude of probability.
>
That probability is obtained by taking the square of the absolute value of
Schrodinger's Wave Function,
On 20 Jul 2015, at 00:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>But the truth is if space-time IS quantized then the Real
Numbers are a mathematical fiction.
> That does not follow. You might still need the real in the
amplitudes. The irratio
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> But the truth is if space-time* IS* quantized then the
>>
>> Real
>> Numbers are a mathematical fiction
>> .
>>
>
> >
> That does not follow. You might still need the real in the amplitudes. The
> irrational sqrt(2) will not go
On 18 Jul 2015, at 23:33, John Clark wrote:
Some bozo by the name of John K Clark wrote:
"it all depends on if space-time is quantized or not; if
it's not then the Real Numbers are a mathematical fiction"
But the truth is if space-time IS quantized then the Real Numbers
are a mathe
Some bozo by the name of John K Clark wrote:
"
it all depends on if space-time is quantized or not; if it's not then the
Real Numbers are a mathematical fiction
"
But the truth is if space-time* IS* quantized then the
Real Numbers are a mathematical fiction
.
John K Clark
--
You re
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Pierz wrote:
> >
> Don't you think there's a difference between "not thinking" and "thinking
> of nothing"?
>
No, I don't think there is a difference and you gave the reason why
thinking of nothing is equivalent to not thinking
when you said:
"
"Nothing
On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
I think JC resoinded to Brent:
"I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity.
Do you?"
I wonder if 'immensity'
On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:32:06 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2:54 PM, John Mikes > wrote:
>
> >
>> I think JC resoinded to Brent:
>> *"I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do
>> you?" *
>> I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ? in which case
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
>
> I think JC resoinded to Brent:
>
> *"I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do
> you?" *
>
> I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ? in which
On Wed, 2:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> I think JC resoinded to Brent:
> *"I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do
> you?" *
> I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ? in which case I cannot refrain
> from thinking about the* infinite SMALL* as well.
>
It's t
On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
I think JC resoinded to Brent:
"I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity.
Do you?"
I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ? in which case I cannot
refrain from thinking about the infinite SMALL as well.
The infinit
I think JC resoinded to Brent:
*"I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do
you?" *
I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ? in which case I cannot refrain
from thinking about the* infinite SMALL* as well. Just like I may think for
'eternal' as
being momentary and tim
On 14 Jul 2015, at 20:25, meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 07/14/15, John Clark wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 , Brent wrote:
> Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity.
I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity.
Do you?
No, I don't, whi
On 07/14/15, John Clark wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 , Brent wrote:
> Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity.
I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do you?
No, I don't, which was more or less my point. What we think of as our "
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 , Brent wrote:
>
> >
> Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity.
I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do you?
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Pierz wrote:
>
> Sure. It's a concept even very young children ca
On 14 Jul 2015, at 03:26, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:08:35 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity. It's not by
dividing by zero. It's by using "and then..."
Sure. It's a concept even very young children can understand -
probably
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 Pierz wrote:
>
> Here's something that bothers me when I try to think of the brain too much
> as a computer. How would I teach a computer the notion of infinity?
>
A computer already knows about some integers, and it knows how to find the
successor to some integers; it'
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:08:35 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
>
> Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity. It's not by
> dividing by zero. It's by using "and then..."
Sure. It's a concept even very young children can understand - probably
almost as easily as zero. "There are
On 13 Jul 2015, at 18:08, meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity. It's not by
dividing by zero. It's by using "and then..." There's no obstacle
in principle to having a computer reason about the consequences of
having an axiom of succession.
Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity. It's not by dividing
by zero. It's by using "and then..." There's no obstacle in principle to
having a computer reason about the consequences of having an axiom of
succession. It doesn't need to have an infinite memory capacity to do s
On 13 Jul 2015, at 15:29, Pierz wrote:
Here's something that bothers me when I try to think of the brain
too much as a computer. How would I teach a computer the notion of
infinity?
That's an excellent question.
Logic put some light on this, by showing that the notion of
"finite" (and t
Here's something that bothers me when I try to think of the brain too much
as a computer. How would I teach a computer the notion of infinity? In
simple terms, how can I represent infinity in a computer program? All a
computer knows about infinity is 'stack overflow' (or simply integer
overflow
24 matches
Mail list logo
