- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: 11 January 2005 14:47
Subject: Re: Belief Statements
> I certainly agree. Now the problem is that there are many logics, and so
> there are many notion or "logical possibility".
It
At 09:45 12/01/05 +, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
It sounds like we may be using 'logics' for two different purposes. For me,
basic logic is intended here (that of syllogisms and 'if it is true
that p, then it cannot be the case that p is false');
This is a little ambiguous. But I will take it as yo
At 18:12 11/01/05 -0500, John M quotes Russell Standish writing:
(if I am correct in the quotes).
4) For those who believe in Computationalism, the Turing model of
computation implicitly requires this Time postulate.
Here I disagree a lot. Actually most models of computation does no
require any
Dear Russell, you wrote:
>"This sounds like a terminological difference. To me, "data" refers to
>mere differences. Information has meaning. Observation attaches
>meaning to data, creating informations from that data."
WHAT do you "observe" if you have to create the meaning? I find it a reverse
rou
On 9 January 2005 Alastair Malcolm wrote:
This is a fascinating discussion list, full of stimulating ideas and
theories, but I would be interested to know what people *actually* believe
on the subject of many/all worlds - what one would bet one's house or life
on, given that one were forced to cho
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
> 1. Every possible world can be simulated by a computer program.
I'm not sure that this is the best definition of a "possible" world.
I'm concerned that we are hiding a lot of assumptions in this word.
It relates to my earlier comment about ambiguity in which constitut
6 matches
Mail list logo
