RE: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Lee Corbin
Jesse writes I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes because your brain is a part of an obviously successful survival machine designed by evolution. Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where reality is made up of nothing but observer-moments

RE: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Jesse Mazer
Lee Corbin wrote: Jesse writes I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes because your brain is a part of an obviously successful survival machine designed by evolution. Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where reality is made up of nothing

Fwd: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Aditya Varun Chadha
sorry for the misaddressing... -- Forwarded message -- From: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jul 30, 2005 8:47 PM Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World To: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] At the risk of barging in once again, Since there is nothing

Re: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Jesse and Lee, I must interject! - Original Message - From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World Lee Corbin wrote: snip [LC] The disagreement I

Re: In-Between Times

2005-07-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-juil.-05, à 05:46, Bill Taylor wrote (FOR-LIST) Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -I would say theology is even more important. than physics !!! ??? I will try to explain. The word theology has many connotations. The word is not so important if you understand the idea. I

Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?

2005-07-30 Thread Wei Dai
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 and

Re: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 30-juil.-05, à 17:18, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit : I think Mazer has put this across quite nicely, so I pause here. I agree with you and Jesse Mazer. Except that Jesse points on a speculation on the observer-moments, where I find enough to speculate on the truth on the comp

Re: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 30-juil.-05, à 08:53, Lee Corbin a écrit : When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice have of the world, we can easily see their limitations. What would we think of mice who attempted to found all of reality on mouse observer moments? Give them time! Mice will probably discover

RE: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread chris peck
Hi Lee; Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons 'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this definition to know something. Its a little sceptical isnt it?

RE: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Lee Corbin
Aditya writes At the risk of barging in once again, Oh, please forget about all that! No one should apologize for it. Ever. I (Lee) had written When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice have of the world, we can easily see their limitations. What would we think of mice who

RE: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Lee Corbin
Chris writes Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons 'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this definition to know something. Its a little sceptical

Re: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Aditya Varun Chadha
Whoa! A simple question that just opened up SO many things in my mind! (maybe a few screws too:-) ) Blabber on I shall! [LC]: By event do you mean an event that leaves a record? Just wondering. leaves a record is the same as saying affects/causes/interferes with other events. Side Note:

RE: possible solution to modal realism's problem of induction

2005-07-30 Thread Brian Holtz
Title: Message AP: Any two deterministic, reversible automata with state space ofthe same cardinality are isomorphic, no? BH: If so, wouldn't that involve an isomorphism whose information contentispotentially the same size as the state space itself?AP: I am not sure how the

(offlist) RE: What We Can Know About the World (fwd)

2005-07-30 Thread Brent Meeker
-Original Message- From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:29 AM To: Lee Corbin Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World On 29-Jul-05, you wrote: Jesse writes I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes because

Re: What We Can Know About the World

2005-07-30 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: This is not to say that progress is impossible. Consider an idea like Aditya has: what is the real difference between an event and an observer-moment? In trying to answer that question, many of us may learn something (at least for