On 09 Jun 2014, at 00:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 June 2014 22:47, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ready? Have you bought the Mendelson?
OK, I give in.
Wonderful.
I just found a reasonably-priced second-hand copy of the Mendelson
on Abebooks - should be here in a few days.
Perfect. That will b
On 8 June 2014 22:47, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ready? Have you bought the Mendelson?
OK, I give in. I just found a reasonably-priced second-hand copy of the
Mendelson on Abebooks - should be here in a few days. Oh, and by the way,
I'm presently reading and enjoying Hines's "Return to the One". Than
On 08 Jun 2014, at 14:28, David Nyman wrote:
On 7 June 2014 20:05, Bruno Marchal wrote:
At step 7, it is not in principle. Like in the preceding protocol,
we just assume the existence of an infinite running of the UD in our
infinite (then) space-time structure.
The proposition is that i
On 7 June 2014 20:05, Bruno Marchal wrote:
*At step 7, it is not in principle. Like in the preceding protocol, we just
assume the existence of an infinite running of the UD in our infinite
(then) space-time structure.*
*The proposition is that if that is the case, and don't see white rabbits,
it
On 07 Jun 2014, at 17:23, David Nyman wrote:
On 12 February 2014 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
At step seven, the primitive materialist can still invoke a
physicalist form of ultrafinitism, to prevent the comp reversal
between physics and arithmetic (or number theology).
If I've grasped t
On 12 February 2014 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
At step seven, the primitive materialist can still invoke a physicalist
> form of ultrafinitism, to prevent the comp reversal between physics and
> arithmetic (or number theology).
If I've grasped this, it's that one could attempt to avoid the rev
On 12 Feb 2014, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-12 12:17 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in a
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 2:15 pm, LizR wrote:
>
> The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum
> duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and living from day
> to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of) continuity.
Yes. The way I now understand it, w
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Isn't quantum mechanics based on the reals?
Yes. Like classical physics. And like, most plausibly the comp-
physics, by the dovetailing on the reals inputs, which might play a
role in the measure stabilization problem. But this has to be
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from
Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
simulate an exponential with such polynomials)
- the polyno
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:20:43AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from Matiyasevitch):
> >- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
> >simulate an exponential with such poly
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:42, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where
> >>you describe
> >>your work that you published since your thesis. I
> On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >thesis. This doesn't bother me - if you ever bothered to read my
> >thesis (not that I'm recommending you do so), you would find it
> >consists of two faily different topics, with only the most tenuous
> >connection between them.
Oopsa-dai
On 16 February 2014 00:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> ;)
>
> From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the following
> phases:
>
> 1- enter with an apparently bright idea
> 2- is exposed to comp bombardment
> 3- comp seduction
> 4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything an
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quen
On 15 Feb 2014, at 17:55, John Clark wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes wrote:
> LizR: but WHO is the observer?
The one great advantage that Many Worlds has over other quantum
interpretations is that Everett doesn't need to answer that
question. That's the reason I like it.
On 15 Feb 2014, at 14:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a
virtual world where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in
an infinity of versions in the UD deployment as our own reality..
Isn't quantum mechanics based on the reals?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from
> Matiyasevitch):
> - The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot simulate an
exponential with such polynomials)
- the polynomial on the integers are Turing universal, you c
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes wrote:
> > LizR: but WHO is the observer?
The one great advantage that Many Worlds has over other quantum
interpretations is that Everett doesn't need to answer that question.
That's the reason I like it.
John K Clark
--
You received this message beca
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a virtual world
> where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in an infinity of
> versions in the UD deployment as our own reality... You have no point
> proving our own reality could n
On 15 Feb 2014, at 12:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the
following phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything and nothing. T
;)
>From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the following
phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything and nothing. That means
nothing)
5- comp aversion (too much comp, every
On 14 Feb 2014, at 23:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the
theorem of G, + the axiom:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 22:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Mar
On 15 Feb 2014, at 00:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing un
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:32, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With
others it is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply
approximation of
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With
others it is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply
approximation of natural numbers only, or, if you want, y
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09
On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:11, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 February 2014 15:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is the origin of the white rabbits. if our brain is a universal
machine, we can can be failed, and are actually failed in infinities
of computations.
Do you mean "fooled"?
I guess you are
On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-14 16:49 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 21:05 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
> both the W *and* the M guy are the H guy
Yes.
> the question bear on probability of expectation for the H guy when
he press the button...
If that is the question then the answer w
On 2/14/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some
On 15 February 2014 11:27, meekerdb wrote:
>
> I was merely using teleportation as an example to illustrate that
> "possible" is a relative concept depending on the accessiblity relation.
> What does "possible in principle" mean? Does it only mean "not self
> contradictory"? Does it mean consi
On 2/14/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the theorem of G, +
the axiom:
[]A -> A
But is NOT close for the necessita
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others
>> it is not.
>> The slide rules is not
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others it
is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You ca
On 2/14/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anc
On 14 Feb 2014, at 12:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
To summarize: there are all possible combinations of 1 and 0's
therefore everithing can be made isomorphic or "emergent" from 0 and
1's.
?
So stop thinking and praise 0s and 1s hypothesis.
?
-Why people make apparently weird dist
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others it
> is not.
> The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply
> approximation of natural numbers only, or, if you
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where you
describe
your work that you published since your thesis. I can sort of see you
saying something a bit like the above on page 11 "Now DU [
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes wrote:
> LizR: but WHO is the observer? In my vocabulary "observer" is
> anyrhing/body acknowledging input on anything/body.
> (from a charged ion to G.B.Shaw upon an electric charge up to a
> drama-input.Observation is part of consciousness (again
> in my te
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With others it is
not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply approximation of
natural numbers only, or, if you want, you can analogically add and multiply the real
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:21AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb
LizR: but WHO is the observer? In my vocabulary "observer" is anyrhing/body
acknowledging input on anything/body.
(from a charged ion to G.B.Shaw upon an electric charge up to a
drama-input.Observation is part of consciousness (again
in my terms: as response to relations). (Now Brent, please, do no
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> both the W *and* the M guy are the H guy
>
Yes.
> the question bear on probability of expectation for the H guy when he
> press the button...
>
If that is the question then the answer will be of zero help in
understanding the nature of
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> John, You need to read about the latest developments in string theory.
>
The sad fact is that there are no recent developments in string "theory" ,
and in fact in its entire history it only made one prediction that could be
tested even th
. AUDA consists in some steps toward
formulating the problem and the beginning of a solution, (with a nice
and simple global semantics through the arithmetical interpretation of
Plotinus, but that can make some people nervous).
Bruno
All the best
Chris.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +1300
Subj
2014-02-14 19:29 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>> > > In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who "I" or "you"
>>> is because however many copies of "I" or "you" there may or may not be they
>>> will never meet.
>>>
>>
>> > That ch
onsistently, you certainly
wouldn't show that he was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics.
all the best
Chris.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerd
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > > In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who "I" or "you" is
>> because however many copies of "I" or "you" there may or may not be they
>> will never meet.
>>
>
> > That changes absolutely nothing... just put the reconstruc
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marcha
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin A
On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb wrote:
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is
true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to
refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level.
If this is true
On 14 February 2014 15:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is the origin of the white rabbits. if our brain is a universal
> machine, we can can be failed, and are actually failed in infinities of
> computations.
Do you mean "fooled"?
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
To summarize: there are all possible combinations of 1 and 0's therefore
everithing can be made isomorphic or "emergent" from 0 and 1's. So stop
thinking and praise 0s and 1s hypothesis.
-Why people make apparently weird distincitions?
it does not matter: comp says nothing about it. it depends o
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 12 Feb 201
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the
theorem of G, + the axiom:
[]A -> A
But is NOT close for the necessitation rule (can you see why that
is impos
On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where you describe
your work that you published since your thesis. I can sort of see you
saying something a bit like the above on page 11 "Now DU [sic - should
be UD in English] is emulated plat
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:21AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, B
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
> >
> >On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>hence
sis of an infinite number of
computations (I think the MWI has a similar problem?)
>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
> --------------
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +1300
>
> Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
> From: lizj...@gmail.com
> To: everyt
e.
my objections were to do with the correct way to predict expectancy in a
universe in which every possible outcome occurs. They didn't concern
technological limitations. I don't think anyone has objected on that score have
they?
All the best
Chris.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and
can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps
simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that
duplication is possible. (And anyone who thinks consciousness is digital
a
> In MWI 'copies' can not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point
> out an inconsistency its dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly.
>
> In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was
> that Clark applied his argument inconsistently,
years it is in reality
> you who has failed to convince him.
>
> All the best
>
> Chris
>
> --
> From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
egroups.com
Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:08 +
Hi Quentin
>> I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
>> but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he
>> maintains for years the same inv
t. In MWI 'copies' can
not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point out an inconsistency its
dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly.
In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that
Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly would
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb wrote:
>
> So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true
> but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp
> is a dream or simulation at a higher level.
>
If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory.
>
On 14 February 2014 07:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> The duplication of human beings, such a significant prediction of comp,
> should then be amenable to test- using mice of course.
>
> I don't think comp predicts this. Bruno only uses it as a thought
experiment.
However if this is a prediction o
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 2/13/2014 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the theorem of G, +
the axiom:
[]A -> A
But is NOT close for the necessitation rule (can you see why that is impossible). This
entails that G* has no Kripke seman
The duplication of human beings, such a significant prediction of comp,
should then be amenable to test- using mice of course.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>
>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true.
So if you extract "F= KmM/r^2" from comp, and you refute it
ostensibly (by f
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:4
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 1
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 201
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as
contemplated
On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta
On 13 Feb 2014, at 04:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on
modal logic, directly related to the machine discourse (and this
will be justified later, as it is not obvious at all).
which t
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
>
> On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in
>> some versions of cosmology, they
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated
in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics.
Nice, comp predicts that this
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in
> >>S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.
> >
> >The only
On 2/12/2014 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on modal logic,
directly related to the machine discourse (and this will be justified later, as it is
not obvious at all).
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 1:30
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
>
> That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in
> some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics.
>
> Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can ag
On 12 February 2014 21:21, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that
on any universal system, and comp predicts that this w
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote:
My problem with t
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually yes, but that is not relevant, as arithmetic simulate all
digital approximation of all physical universe, (and the real
physical universe is a non Turing emulable sum on all those
computations),
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>> > Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
>>
>
> True, Bell couldn't explain it but he did prove that if his inequality is
> violated then there is
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmet
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on
modal logic, directly related to the machine discourse (and this will
be justified later, as it is not obvious at all).
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014,
rth bothering about.
>>
>> Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because,
>> mentioning no names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional and arm
>> wavey about people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. So for now at least,
>> I'll limit m
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
