Hal Finney wrote:
No doubt this is true. But there are still two somewhat-related problems.
One is, you can go back in time to the first replicator on earth, and
think of its evolution over the ages as a learning process. During this
time it learned this "intuitive physics", i.e. mathematics an
Hal wrote
> Brent Meeker wrote:
> > In practice we use coherence with other theories to guide out choice. With
> > that kind of constraint we may have trouble finding even one candidate
> > theory.
> Well, in principle there still should be an infinite number of theories,
> starting with "the da
Le 27-juil.-05, à 00:12, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :
I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the
following:
Thanks for trying to reconciliate us :)
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be a
Hi Lee,
Thanks for answering all my mails, but I see you send on the list only
the one where you disagree. Have you done this purposefully? Can I
quote some piece of the mail you did not send on the list? I will
answer asap.
Also, for this one, I did not intend to insult you. Sorry if it looks
strange terms that we
use. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
I think a reconciliation between
I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the following:
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be able to perceive and
understand 'more', but at ANY point of time the above limitation
holds). I think this
Bruno writes
> > Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
> > that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
> > then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
> > that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
> > agree---this is *ver
Le 26-juil.-05, à 04:06, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
while we gingerly probe forward.
The basics (basic epistemology, that is) include
1. the map is not the territory, and perception is not reality
This is ambiguous. A trivial exam
Le 26-juil.-05, à 02:17, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
agre
Le 23-juil.-05, à 08:14, Hal Finney a écrit :
My current view is a little different, which is that all of the
equations
"fly". Each one does come to life but each is in its own universe,
so we can't see the result. But they are all just as real as our own.
In fact one of the equations might
Le 23-juil.-05, à 06:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Hales) a écrit :
That's my handle on the relationship between mathematical models and
reality. It's been a useful way of thinking for me and I commend it to
you for a little amusement.
Just a subtle point: if you say "YES" to the comp-doctor
Hi Stephen,
I merely wish to comprehend the ideas of those that take a Pythagorean
approach to mathematics; e.g. that Mathematics is "more real" than the
physical world - "All is number".
One thing that I have learned in my study of philosophy is that no
single finite model of reality can
Lee Corbin writes:
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive into a philosophy book
is that there is an ordinary three-dimensional world that
we are all running around in.
(Yes---one *may
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 07:06:50PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > For most of us in this list, the 3+1 dimensional spacetime we inhabit,
> > with its stars and galaxies etc is an appearance, phenomena emerging
> > out of constraints imposed by the process of observation.
>
> Right there is the pr
and am having a
hardtime finding the middle ground. ;-)
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: "EverythingList"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: what relation do mathematical models have with
Russell writes
> Sadly, your wish for the common sense understanding of "reality" to hold
> will be thwarted - the more one thinks about such things, the less
> coherent a concept it becomes.
Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
while we gingerly probe forward.
The ba
Hi Hal,
Here is Scott's responce.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Aaronson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: what relation do mathematical mo
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:17:37PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Aditya writes
>
> > Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
> > our minds' "understanding" of our sensory perceptions.
>
> It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
> realism? The *defau
25, 2005 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Aditya writes
Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' "understanding" of our sensory perceptions.
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak
Hal writes
> > I'd say they are *less* than models of reality. They are just consistency
> > conditions on our models of reality. They are attempts to avoid talking
> > nonsense. But note that not too long ago all the weirdness of quantum
> > mechanics and relativity would have been regarded as
Aditya writes
> Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
> our minds' "understanding" of our sensory perceptions.
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive in
Hal Finney wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
[Hal Finney wrote:]
When you observe evidence and construct your models, you need some
basis for choosing one model over another. In general, you can create
an infinite number of possible models to match any finite amount of
evidence. It's even worse
Brent Meeker wrote:
> [Hal Finney wrote:]
> > When you observe evidence and construct your models, you need some
> > basis for choosing one model over another. In general, you can create
> > an infinite number of possible models to match any finite amount of
> > evidence. It's even worse when yo
Stephen Paul King wrote:
> BTW, Scott Aaronson has a nice paper on the P=NP problem that is found here:
> http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf
That describes different proposals for physical mechanisms for efficiently
solving NP-complete problems: things like quantum computing varian
Dear Brent and others in this thread:
I kept out of it (not the least because of computer
troubles still unresolved) now I have some remarks:
How do you (all) imagine experience/knowledge WITHOUT
experience and knowledge to absorb/create it? It is a
(vicious?) circle. Do we start with a blank for
Forwarded on behalf of Brent Meeker:
> On 24-Jul-05, you wrote:
>
> > Brent Meeker writes:
> >> Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
> >> and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
> >> experiences and we create a model that describes them and
> >> predicts
parate set of models can
obtain in the first place.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Greetings,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 06:09:39PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On that note I'm not sure Wheeler's description is the same. In my idea of
> the calculus all there is is the sheets of paper. There are no symbols (no
> intrinsic representation). There are intrinsic rules of formation and
Brent Meeker writes:
> Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
> and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
> experiences and we create a model that describes them and
> predicts them. Using this model to predict or describe usually
> involves some calculatio
Greetings,
Here's my Rupee 1 on the connection between "abstract models" and "reality";
Although it is ofcourse debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' "understanding" of our sensory perceptions. Thus the notion
of (our) reality depends on:
1. The nature of mind
Let's ass
On 23-Jul-05, you wrote:
> Hi Brent,
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:31 PM"Michael Godfrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date
> Subject: Re: what relation do mathematic
Hi Brent,
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
On 22-Jul-05,Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Ok, I am rapidly loosing the
"Hal Finney" writes:
>
> : Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot
> : squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square
> : a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the
> : universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of
Colin Hales writes:
> The idea brings with it one unique aspect: none of the calculii we
> hold so dear, that are so wonderful to play with, so poweful in their
> predictive nature in certain contexts, are ever reified. None of them
> actually truly capture reality in any way. They only appear to i
I would like to suggest a way of reconciling this situation for your
consideration. I have no proof as yet but if accepted and then used as a
vehicle of exploration and understanding of context I have found it to be a
useful.
A formal logic (an arbitrary calculus) is defined by 4 basic constitu
oice of logic
> and set theory, what relation do mathematical models have with
> reality?
>
>Is this not as obvious as it appears?
Here's my $0.02. We can only base our knowledge on our experience
and we don't experience *reality*, we just have certain
experiences and we cr
Hi Brent,
Ok, I am rapidly loosing the connection that abstract models have with
the physical world, at least in the case of computations. If there is no
constraint on what we can conjecture, other than what is required by one's
choice of logic and set theory, what relation do mathema
37 matches
Mail list logo