The position you state is functionalism. COMP also assumes that the
physical state you speak of is emulable by a Turing machine.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:36:00AM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Norman,
Le 20-juin-06, à 04:04, Norman Samish a écrit :
I've
Hello Norman,
Le 05-juil.-06, à 19:17, Norman Samish a écrit :
Dear Bruno,
You have, more than once, referred to something I (jokingly) said a month ago:
I've endured this thread long enough! Let's get back to something I can understand!
I said this because I am hungry for more
Le 05-juil.-06, à 20:36, George Levy a écrit :
My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has to do with terminology. For example the term COMP hypothesis does not carry any information.
One of my old name for it was
In the July 1-7 2006 edition of New Scientist there is a review of the
book "The Comprehensible Cosmos" by Victor Stenger. You can see here a power
point presentation on symmetry by Stenger.
Stenger discusses the idea of symmetry, in particular the work of Emmy
Noether who proved that the
DearBruno,You have, more than once, referred
to somethingI (jokingly) said a month ago:
"I've endured this thread long enough! Let's get
back to something I can understand!"
I said this because I am hungry for more informed
speculation on "Why does anything exist?" and related questions.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Norman,
Le 20-juin-06, 04:04, Norman Samish a crit :
I've endured this thread long
enough! Let's get back to something I can understand!
My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do
share some of Norman misgivings.
Hi Norman,
Le 20-juin-06, à 04:04, Norman Samish a écrit :
I've endured this thread long enough! Let's get back to something I can understand!
This means that at some point you have stop to understand. It is easier to help if you say so at the moment when you stop to understand. I mean this
7 matches
Mail list logo
