Hi John,
At 10:39 12/01/04 -0500, John M wrote:
Bruno,
in the line you touched with 'numbers:
I was arguing on another list 'pro' D.Bohm's there are no numbers in
nature
position ...
But what is nature ? I have never said that numbers exist in nature.
The word nature or the word universe are
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:24:07PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If I'd kill you, you'd have no chance of thinking that thought.
Actually this is pure wishful thinking, unless you mean succeeding
I was referring to a gedanken experiment, of course.
to kill me and my counterparts in some
At 14:08 13/01/04 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
you be able to do a thing like that. I will not insist on this
startling consequence of COMP or QM, giving that you
postulate physicalism at the start. See my thesis for a proof that
physicalism is incompatible with comp. We have discuss the
At 10:14 13/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical property
independent of us because there is no thing on which they would
apply independentkly of us. What we would call their arithmetical
properties is simply a set of tautologies that do come with
[Georges Quenot]Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical property
independent of us because there is no thing on which they would apply independentkly
of us. What we would call their arithmetical properties is simply a set of tautologies
that do come with them when they are considered
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:03:38PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is the point? Do we have experimental procedure to validate
the opposite of the fanciful scenario? Giving that we were talking about
I see, we're at the prove that the Moon is not made from green cheese when
nobody is looking
Wei Dai wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:32:05PM +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Many other way of simulating the universe could be considered like
for instance a 4D mesh (if we simplify by considering only general
relativity; there is no reason for the approach not being possible in
an
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
No. They actually came to me while I was figuring some other
ways of simulating a universe than the sequential one that seemed
to give rise to many problems to me. The second one is influenced
What's your take on how subjective
Georges Quenot writes:
I do not believe in either case that a simulation with this level
of detail can be conducted on any computer that can be built in
our universe (I mean a computer able to simulate a universe
containing a smaller computer doing the calculation you considered
with a level
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 13:36 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems, but it isn't. Well, actually I have known *one* mathematician,
(a russian logician) who indeed makes a serious try to develop
some mathematics without that infinite act of faith (I
Hal Finney wrote:
Suppose we sought to construct a consistent history of such a CA system
by first starting with purely random values at each point in space and
time. Now, obviously this arrangement will not satisfy the CA rules.
But then we go through and start modifying things locally so as to
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Hal Finney wrote:
Suppose we sought to construct a consistent history of such a CA system
by first starting with purely random values at each point in space and
time. Now, obviously this arrangement will not satisfy the CA rules.
But then we go through and start modifying
Dear Wei, Georges, et al,
Where does the notion of computational resources factor in this?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Georges Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe
Hi Eugin,
I see, we're at the prove that the Moon is not made from green cheese
when
nobody is looking stage.
I thought this list wasn't about ghosties'n'goblins.
Allright, I seem to have been mistaken about that.
You seem to be getting a little hot under the collar!
Here is a
14 matches
Mail list logo
