I have browsed papers on Loebian embodiment, for example
Life, Mind, and Robots
The Ins and Outs of Embodied Cognition
Hybrid Neural Systems, 2000 - Springer
On 19 Aug 2011, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/19/2011 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So do you have a LISP program that will make my computer Lobian?
It would be easier to do it by hands:
1) develop a first order logic specification for your computer
(that is a first order axiomatic for
On 21 Aug 2011, at 08:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have browsed papers on Loebian embodiment, for example
Life, Mind, and Robots
The Ins and Outs of Embodied Cognition
Hybrid Neural Systems, 2000 - Springer
On 19 Aug 2011, at 20:18, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.08.2011 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 17 Aug 2011, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2011 10:36 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.08.2011 20:47 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes,
On 18 Aug 2011, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/18/2011 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Aug 2011, at 19:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with that sentiment. That's why I often try to think of
consciousness in terms of what it would mean to
On 18.08.2011 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 17 Aug 2011, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2011 10:36 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.08.2011 20:47 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider
On 8/19/2011 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So do you have a LISP program that will make my computer Lobian?
It would be easier to do it by hands:
1) develop a first order logic specification for your computer (that
is a first order axiomatic for its data structures, including the
elementary
On 17 Aug 2011, at 19:49, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 17.08.2011 02:01 Jason Resch said the following:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 15.08.2011 23:42 Jason Resch said the following:
...
But all of this is an aside from point that I was making
On 17 Aug 2011, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2011 10:36 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.08.2011 20:47 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider God's Turing
machine (free from our limitations). Then it
On 8/18/2011 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with that sentiment. That's why I often try to think of
consciousness in terms of what it would mean to provide a Mars Rover
with consciousness. According to Bruno the ones we've sent to Mars
were already conscious, since their computers
On 18 Aug 2011, at 19:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with that sentiment. That's why I often try to think of
consciousness in terms of what it would mean to provide a Mars
Rover with consciousness. According to Bruno the ones we've sent
to Mars
On 8/18/2011 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Aug 2011, at 19:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with that sentiment. That's why I often try to think of
consciousness in terms of what it would mean to provide a Mars
Rover with consciousness.
On Aug 16, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:08 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Our body precisely follows the deterministic biochemical reactions
that
On Aug 17, 12:01 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 6:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Consciousness is a very broad term, with different meanings especially
in different contexts; medical vs philosophical vs vernacular,
macrocosmic vs microcosmic, legal, ethical, etc. For
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:32 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:03 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch
On 8/17/2011 4:53 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 17, 12:01 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 6:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Consciousness is a very broad term, with different meanings especially
in different contexts; medical vs philosophical vs vernacular,
On 16.08.2011 20:47 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider God's Turing
machine (free from our limitations). Then it is obvious that
with the appropriate tape, a physical system can be approximated
to any
On 17.08.2011 02:01 Jason Resch said the following:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 15.08.2011 23:42 Jason Resch said the following:
...
But all of this is an aside from point that I was making
regarding the power and versatility of Turing
On 8/17/2011 10:36 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.08.2011 20:47 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider God's Turing
machine (free from our limitations). Then it is obvious that
with the appropriate tape, a
On Aug 17, 1:30 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But they are not all consciousness = awareness-of-awareness. And the
decision to act precedes the awareness of the decision - which is
evidence against the idea the consciousness is in control of one's
decisions, c.f. Grey Walter
On 8/15/2011 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
just like you can simulate flight if you simulate the
environment you are flying in.
But do we need to simulate the entire atmosphere in order to simulate
flight, or just the atmosphere in the immediate area around the surfaces
of the plane?
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You can simulate it as far as being able to model the aspects of it's
behavior that you can observe, but you can't necessarily predict that
behavior over time, any more than you can predict what other people
might
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
1) simulation of the chemistry or physics underlying the brain is impossible
It’s quite possible, just irrelevant! ‘Chemistry’ and ‘physics’ are terms
for models of the natural world used to describe how
Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future.
Computers
will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted $1,000 worth of
computer will buy a human brain's worth of computational
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go beyond
the brain, that may be essential to our functioning. The way
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:03 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future.
Computers
will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it
On Aug 16, 3:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
You can simulate it as far as being able to model the aspects of it's
behavior that you can observe, but you can't necessarily predict that
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Aug 16, 3:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
You can simulate it as far as being able to model the aspects of it's
On Aug 16, 8:03 am, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future.
Computers
will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If the brain does something not predictable by modelling its
biochemistry that means it works by magic.
Then you are saying that whether you accept what I'm what I'm writing
here or not is purely predictable
On 16 Aug 2011, at 08:08, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
On 8/15/2011 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
just like you can simulate flight if you simulate the environment
you are flying in.
But do we need to simulate the entire atmosphere in order to
simulate flight, or just the atmosphere in the
On Aug 16, 8:10 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:03 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future.
Computers
will get faster,
Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go
beyond
the brain, that may be
On Aug 16, 10:08 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Our body precisely follows the deterministic biochemical reactions
that comprise it. The mind is generated as a result of these
biochemical reactions; a reaction occurs in your brain which causes
you to have a thought to move
On 8/15/2011 11:08 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
On 8/15/2011 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
just like you can simulate flight if you simulate the environment
you are flying in.
But do we need to simulate the entire atmosphere in order to simulate
flight, or just the atmosphere in
On 8/16/2011 7:08 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Our body precisely follows the deterministic biochemical reactions
that comprise it. The mind is generated as a result of these
biochemical reactions; a reaction occurs in your brain which causes
you to have a thought to move your arm and move
On 8/16/2011 7:50 AM, benjayk wrote:
And the problem with the reductionist view is?
It seeks to dissect reality into pieces,
And also to explain how the pieces interact in reality.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 8/16/2011 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's not only possible, it absolutely is otherwise. I move my arm. I
determine the biochemical reactions that move it. Me. For my personal
reasons which are knowable to me in my own natural language and are
utterly unknowable by biochemical analysis.
On 15.08.2011 23:42 Jason Resch said the following:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 15.08.2011 07:56 Jason Resch said the following:
...
Can we accurately simulate physical laws or can't we? Before you
answer, take a few minutes to watch this
On 16.08.2011 16:08 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If the brain does something not predictable by modelling its
biochemistry that means it works by magic.
Then you are saying that whether you accept what
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2011 7:50 AM, benjayk wrote:
And the problem with the reductionist view is?
It seeks to dissect reality into pieces,
And also to explain how the pieces interact in reality.
Right, otherwise there is little use in dissecting. But the very concept of
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider God's Turing
machine (free from our limitations). Then it is obvious that with
the appropriate tape, a physical system can be approximated to any
desired level of accuracy so long as it is
On 8/16/2011 11:31 AM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2011 7:50 AM, benjayk wrote:
And the problem with the reductionist view is?
It seeks to dissect reality into pieces,
And also to explain how the pieces interact in reality.
On Aug 16, 1:44 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's not only possible, it absolutely is otherwise. I move my arm. I
determine the biochemical reactions that move it. Me. For my personal
reasons which are knowable to me in my own
On 8/16/2011 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:44 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's not only possible, it absolutely is otherwise. I move my arm. I
determine the biochemical reactions that move it. Me. For my
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 15.08.2011 23:42 Jason Resch said the following:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
On 15.08.2011 07:56 Jason Resch said the following:
...
Can we accurately simulate
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:32 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:03 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am more
On Aug 16, 7:35 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:44 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's not only possible, it absolutely is otherwise. I move my arm. I
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:08 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Our body precisely follows the deterministic biochemical reactions
that comprise it. The mind is generated as a result of these
biochemical
On 8/16/2011 6:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:35 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2011 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:44 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 8/16/2011 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Read all your commentscutting/snipping to the chase...
[Jason ]
Your belief that AGI is impossible to achieve through computers depends
on at least one of the following propositions being true:
1. Accurate simulation of the chemistry or physics underlying the brain
is impossible
2. Human
Jason Colin, I'm going to just try to address everything in one
reply.
I agree with Colin pretty much down the line. My position assumes that
worldview as axiomatic and then adds some hypotheses on top of that.
Jason, your original list of questions are all predicated on the very
assumption that
On 15.08.2011 07:56 Jason Resch said the following:
...
Can we accurately simulate physical laws or can't we? Before you
answer, take a few minutes to watch this amazing video, which
simulates the distribution of mass throughout the universe on the
largest scales:
see if this helps..
http://s33light.org/post/8963930299
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 15.08.2011 07:56 Jason Resch said the following:
...
Can we accurately simulate physical laws or can't we? Before you
answer, take a few minutes to watch this amazing video, which
simulates the distribution of
On Aug 15, 5:42 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
We're already simulating peices of brain tissue on the order of fruit fly
brains (10,000 neurons). Computers double in power/price every year, so 6
years later we could simulate mouse brains, another 6 we can simulate cat
brains,
On Aug 15, 5:42 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
We're already simulating peices of brain tissue on the order of fruit fly
brains (10,000 neurons). Computers double in power/price every year, so 6
years later we could simulate mouse brains, another 6 we can simulate cat
brains,
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Aug 15, 5:42 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
We're already simulating peices of brain tissue on the order of fruit fly
brains (10,000 neurons). Computers double in power/price every year, so
6
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Read all your commentscutting/snipping to the chase...
It is a little unfortunate you did not answer all of the questions. I
hope that you will answer both questions (1) and (2) below.
Yeah sorry about
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Read all your commentscutting/snipping to the chase...
It is a little unfortunate you did not answer all of
On 8/15/2011 4:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
You seem to accept that computing power is doubling every year. The
fruit fly has 10^5 neurons, a mouse 10^7, a cat 10^9, and a human
10^11. It's only a matter of time (and not that much) before a $10
thumb drive will have enough memory to store a
I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future. Computers
will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted $1,000 worth of
computer will buy a human brain's worth of computational power. 15 years
later, you can get 1,000 X the human brain's power for $1,000. Imagine:
On 8/15/2011 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
just like you can simulate flight if you simulate the environment
you are flying in.
But do we need to simulate the entire atmosphere in order to simulate
flight, or just the atmosphere in the immediate area around the
surfaces of the plane?
On Aug 15, 7:18 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Try this one, it is among the best I have
found:http://www.ivona.com/online/editor.php
It's nicer, but still not significantly more convincing than the
On Aug 15, 8:21 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
The solution is: there is/can be no simulation in an artificial
cognition. It has to use the same processes a brain uses: literally.
This is the replication approach.
On Aug 15, 10:08 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be a very surprising theoretical result.
Only if you have a very sentimental attachment to the theory. It
wouldn't surprise me at all.
Who cares? The main thing is *we can do it using replication*.
What is the difference
On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future. Computers
will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted $1,000 worth of
computer will buy a human brain's worth of computational power. 15 years
later,
Craig,
Thanks for the video, it is truly impressive.
Jason
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
Does the idea of this machine solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness,
or are qualia something more than ideas?
On 14 Aug 2011, at 16:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
Does the idea of this machine solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness,
or are qualia something more than ideas?
Quite cute little physical implementation of a Turing machine.
Read Sane04, it explains
On Aug 14, 11:50 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
Thanks for the video, it is truly impressive.
Jason
Oh glad you liked it. I agree, what a beautifully engineered project.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Of Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2011 1:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Turing Machines
Craig,
Thanks for the video, it is truly impressive.
Jason
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
On Aug 14, 7:29 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote:
Great video ... a picture of simplicity
Q. 'What is it like to be a Turing Machine? = Hard Problem.
A. It's like being the pile of gear in the video, NO MATTER WHAT IS ON
THE TAPE.
Why doesn't it matter what's on the
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2011 10:07 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Turing Machines
On Aug 14, 7:29 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote
: Re: Turing Machines
On Aug 14, 7:29 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote:
Great video ... a picture of simplicity
Q. 'What is it like to be a Turing Machine? = Hard Problem.
A. It's like being the pile of gear in the video, NO MATTER WHAT IS ON
THE TAPE.
Why
Colin and Craig,
Imagine that God has such a machine on his desk, which he uses to
compute the updated positions of each particle in some universe over
each unit of Planck time. Would you agree it is possible for the
following to occur in the simulation:
1. Stars to coalesce due to gravity and
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Colin and Craig,
Imagine that God has such a machine on his desk, which he uses to compute
the updated positions of each particle in some universe over each unit of
Planck time. Would you agree it is
Dear Ben and Bruno,
Your discussions are fascinating! I have one related and pehaps even
trivial question: What is the relationship between the class of Turing
Machines and the class of Boolean Algebras? Is one a subset of the other?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
primitives.
-- Ben G
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: turing machines = boolean algebras ?
Dear Ben and Bruno,
Your discussions are fascinating! I have one related
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turing Machines have no real time clock ...
If we assume the comp hypothesis
(purely based on Turing machines) and the
anthropic principle, then the flow of
consciousness can only be
constrained by the logical nature of the
links
In a message dated 05/21/2000 3:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turing Machines have no real time clock and no
interrupt. If we assume the comp hypothesis
(purely based on Turing machines) and the
anthropic
principle, then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the world was not quantized the comp hypothesis would not hold.
Only if my generalised brain is the entire universe.
Look at my discussion with Niklas Thisel. Comp entails
that, from the first person perspective some
universal feature of our observable neighborhood
In a message dated 01/13/2000 5:58:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who say's the world is quantized?
If the world was not quantized the comp hypothesis would not hold. In fact,
It would be impossible for physical constants to have any definite value,
since there would
83 matches
Mail list logo
