On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 03:14:50PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I guess we need some sort of everything list Alife hacakthon :) Russell is
> very
> quiet, but I know that he also likes this stuff.
Indeed. But I need to retire first to be able to have the time to do
some real work! I tried
Am Do, 18. Aug 2022, um 17:08, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 6:46 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am Mi, 17. Aug 2022, um 21:52, schrieb Brent Meeker:
>> > On 8/17/2022 8:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> And since you, like me, are a strong believer in Darwinism, we
Am Do, 18. Aug 2022, um 13:38, schrieb John Clark:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:46 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> *> Of course they could have evolved some more sophisticated strategies, *
>
> Yes but the other agents could've evolved more sophisticated strategies too,
> and the behavior of the
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 6:46 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
> Am Mi, 17. Aug 2022, um 21:52, schrieb Brent Meeker:
> > On 8/17/2022 8:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >> And since you, like me, are a strong believer in Darwinism, we don't
> >> even have to go into the metaphysical. You might also want
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:46 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
*> Of course they could have evolved some more sophisticated strategies, *
Yes but the other agents could've evolved more sophisticated strategies
too, and the behavior of the other agents must be considered because they
are a very important
Am Mi, 17. Aug 2022, um 21:52, schrieb Brent Meeker:
> On 8/17/2022 8:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> And since you, like me, are a strong believer in Darwinism, we don't
>> even have to go into the metaphysical. You might also want to consider
>> that there is no reason for evolution to
On 8/17/2022 8:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
And since you, like me, are a strong believer in Darwinism, we don't
even have to go into the metaphysical. You might also want to consider
that there is no reason for evolution to provide us with direct access
to reality. It might also be the case
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:29 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>> Yes we could be part of a computer simulation, but the computer
>> simulating us must be operating according to physical law, unless it is
>> also a simulation. But unless it's turtles all the way down eventually
>> you're going to hit the
Am Mo, 15. Aug 2022, um 14:45, schrieb John Clark:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:07 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> __
>>> >> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
>>
>> *> I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I bought
>> his book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out,
Am Mo, 15. Aug 2022, um 17:27, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:51 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> __
>>
>>
>> Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 19:56, schrieb Jason Resch:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes
>>> wrote:
__
Hi Jason,
This
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:33 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The universe exists for much the same reason it is not possible to define
> nothingness without paradox. Nothingness cannot exist, otherwise by its
> existential nature it would be something. If
I never entirely saw why one would embrace the Wolfram paradigm of physics.
The universe exists for much the same reason it is not possible to define
nothingness without paradox. Nothingness cannot exist, otherwise by its
existential nature it would be something. If nothingness does not exist.
That which can explain anything fails to explain at all.
Brent
On 8/15/2022 8:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Thank you for that. I have yet to find an idea that can explain more
while assuming less (in this case only assuming that 2+2=4, and the
rest can be shown constructively).
--
You received
On 8/15/2022 8:23 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make
sure that the man you have just convicted of murder does not
murder again. Take for example the case of
ioannou
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 4:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics
Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 21:53, John Clark
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 a
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 01:23, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> >> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make sure that
>>> the man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again. Take for
>>> example the case of
Read the rest and maybe it will make sense.
Jason
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022, 2:16 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> There are many dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milkyway, and hence also
>> orbiting Uranus. Perhaps there is intelligent life in one
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jason Resch wrote:
*> There are many dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milkyway, and hence also
> orbiting Uranus. Perhaps there is intelligent life in one of these dwarf
> galaxies which makes teapots.*
>
What the hell?!
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:45 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:07 AM Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
>>
>>
>
> *> I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I
>> bought his book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out, which is
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 6:47 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 3:02 PM Joel Dietz wrote:
>
> >> And if it "*is basically unprovable by definition*" so you can't prove
>>> or disprove it then it's silly and is an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>>>
>>
>
>
>> *> Then by your
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:51 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
>
> Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 19:56, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started
> going in this direction,
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make sure that the
>> man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again. Take for
>> example the case of Kenneth McDuff, he was convicted of the rape torture
>> and
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 22:12, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 2:40 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> * > If it's a matter of bad genes or cosmic rays that's not something that
>> can enter into informing the calculation to commit murder so there's no
>> point in making an example of
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:11 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
*> I agree with your premises but not with your conclusions. I agree that:*
>
> *- I am conscious.*
> *- There is overwhelming evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution.*
>
OK.
> >
> *I disagree that:*
>
> *- Natural selection "invented"
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:07 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
>
>
*> I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I
> bought his book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out, which is also
> beautiful and inspiring.*
>
Me too, that book is on my
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 2:40 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
* > If it's a matter of bad genes or cosmic rays that's not something that
> can enter into informing the calculation to commit murder so there's no
> point in making an example of those murderers.*
>
But as I said, before you start worrying
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 3:02 PM Joel Dietz wrote:
>> And if it "*is basically unprovable by definition*" so you can't prove
>> or disprove it then it's silly and is an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>>
>
> *> Then by your definition your idea that 'there is not a teapot in orbit
> around the
Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 20:47, schrieb John Clark:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> *> I think John rejects zombies,*
>
> Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am
> conscious and the evidence is overwhelming that Darwinian evolution is
Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 14:55, schrieb John Clark:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:04 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> *> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)*
>
> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I bought his
book "A New Kind
Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 19:56, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> __
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started going
>> in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs are
>>
>>>
>>>
> >> I can't prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
>>> either, but there's no reason to think there is one and there are
>>> plenty of reasons to suspect there is not.
>>>
>>
>> *> This is exactly the difference between a reasonable assumption and
>> proof.*
>>
>
>
On 8/14/2022 4:19 AM, John Clark wrote:
Therefore from a legal point of view it shouldn't matter if somebody
is a murderer because he had bad genes, or bad upbringing, or a random
cosmic ray distroyed the crucial part of his brain that generates
empathy for his fellow creatures, the
On 8/14/2022 2:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> This is the layperson’s definition of freedom and the
definition used to establish legal responsibility in court.
Yes, and that is why the legal system is such aridiculous
incoherent mess. There could be no other
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 01:21, Joel Dietz wrote:
> There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the
> term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.
>
> 1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in which
> a particular self-identified subject
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 12:04 PM Joel Dietz wrote:
>> And either there was a reason you chose that action rather than another
>> in which case you're a cuckoo clock, or there was no reason you chose that
>> action rather than another in which case you're a roulette wheel. Where
>> does this
>
>
>
> And either there was a reason you chose that action rather than another in
> which case you're a cuckoo clock, or there was no reason you chose that
> action rather than another in which case you're a roulette wheel. Where
> does this thing called "free will" enter the picture? Forget
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 8:47 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
*> The idea of acting of your own free will only applies to punishment as
> deterrent.*
Before you start worrying about deterrence the first order of business is
to make sure that a convicted murderer doesn't murder again because I
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 11:21 AM Joel Dietz wrote:
*There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the
> term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.*
> *1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in
> which a particular self-identified subject
There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the
term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.
1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in which
a particular self-identified subject choses an action without coercion. In
that sense, one can
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 22:07, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> >> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
>>> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
>>> brick wall it's a good thing
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
>> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
>> brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
>> wall, and
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 21:20, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:52 AM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> *> you don't act of your own free will if you do something accidentally,
>> or you are forced,*
>>
>
> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
>
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:52 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
*> you don't act of your own free will if you do something accidentally, or
> you are forced,*
>
Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 18:52, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 5:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> *> Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they
>> think free will and determinism are compatible. *
>
>
> I think before philosophers start saying what free
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 5:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
*> Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they
> think free will and determinism are compatible. *
I think before philosophers start saying what free will is and is not
compatible with they should first explain
On 8/13/2022 4:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
/> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
identically, as would any supervening mental states./
Yes.
> /However, a supervenient relationship is such
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 21:53, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> *> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
>> identically, as would any supervening mental states.*
>
>
> Yes.
>
> > *However, a supervenient relationship
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
*> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
> identically, as would any supervening mental states.*
Yes.
> *However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different
> physical states can give rise
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 10:23, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Below is what I wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:33 PM John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch
wrote:
/> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept
of zero would necessarily exist to preserve the property of
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 4:49 PM Mindey wrote:
> I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have a
>> better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it.
>
>
> > I define "nothing" as absence of information about any aspect
>
>
>> * > My scepticism is this: is anything being gained in terms of
>> explanatory power? *
>
>
> Although quite interesting so far Stephen Wolfram cellular automation
> ideas have been no help whatsoever to physicists, but perhaps someday they
> may be, maybe someday we'll find that quarks
The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe that
> truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be
> true independently of the universe
Definition is not nothing. Definition is an implicit program.
I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:41 PM Jason Resch wrote:
> *You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects.*
>
I also said the universe could not exist if it only had one physical object
because I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have
a better definition of
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Below is what I wrote:
>>
>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:33 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept of zero
>> would necessarily exist to preserve the property of the number of physical
>> objects in that nothing. If the
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch wrote:
*> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept of zero
> would necessarily exist to preserve the property of the number of physical
> objects in that nothing. If the concept of zero exists then at least 'one'
> abstract entity
On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Below is what I wrote:
The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing
to believe that truth values for mathematical
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Below is what I wrote:
>
> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
> be true
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:48 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> I think John rejects zombies,*
>
>
> Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am
> conscious and the evidence is overwhelming that Darwinian evolution is
>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch wrote:
*> I think John rejects zombies,*
Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am
conscious and the evidence is overwhelming that Darwinian evolution is
correct, but if you could have intelligent behavior without
On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Below is what I wrote:
The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to
believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 =
4” can exist and be true independently of the universe or someone
writing it down,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started
> going in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs
> are perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be
>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:04 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
*> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)*
Well, I like Stephen Wolfram and I agree 100% with the ASCII sequence that
Stephen Wolfram's *physical* brain produced:
"*As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people
Hi Jason,
This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started going in
this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs are perhaps
one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be conceived of.
Almost everything else can be seen as a special case
75 matches
Mail list logo
