[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
Where could the executive program have come from? Perhaps one could call
it God. I can think of no possibility other than It was always there,
and eternal existence is a concept I can't imagine. Are there any other
Hi Brent,
This is quite amazing! I got only nothing there (due to the fact that ESCRIBE does no more work I guess).
The step by step presentation to Joel Dobrzelewski
seems to be here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg01274.html
See also for the sequel:
Le 17-mars-06, à 00:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Dualism says there are two really existing realms or substances.
This is Descartes' dualism between mind and body.
Saying the physical realm is concrete and real and the mathematical
realm is abstract and unreal is not dualism.
Well,
To brent... (sorry I do not have the mail in my mailbox to reply to it).
So reality is what kicks back... Ok, but that was not the question (really), I
want to know what distinction you do between abstract thing and real thing ?
You would say real things are things when throw at you, hurt you
Le 17-mars-06, à 00:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
The argument does not show the the
physical universe can only emerge on an infinity of overlapping
computations, as such. It might show this given a series of
assumptions-- that we are nothing but hardwareless computations,
that the
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
happen.)
2. Is reasonable or rational thinking exclusive for
ONLY those, who live in a 'numbers' obsession?
or is it an elitist heaughtiness to look down to all,
who do
--- Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 11-mars-06, à 10:59, Georges Quénot wrote (to
John):
snip
Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I
presented
fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is
required
to adhere to such a framework
John M a écrit :
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
I am not sure to understand what you mean by REAL here.
There are arguments against solipsism. Wittgenstein for
instance produced some. None of them is lilkey to be
decisive. They may work with some
Le 16-mars-06, à 22:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or
a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the
discussion) concept? I take them as mathematical concepts, so that
speculating about isomorphisms of
John M wrote:
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
happen.)
2. Is reasonable or rational thinking exclusive for
ONLY those, who live in a 'numbers' obsession?
or is it an elitist heaughtiness to
Le 16-mars-06, à 23:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
is it ? we might be able to ground meaning in causal interactions,
for instance, but can we ground causal interactions in the
timeless world of maths ?
I think Hal Finney just gave a nice answer through the notion of block
universe.
I do
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 16-mars-06, à 23:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
is it ? we might be able to ground meaning in causal interactions,
for instance, but can we ground causal interactions in the
timeless world of maths ?
I think Hal Finney just gave a nice answer through the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 16-mars-06, à 22:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or
a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the
discussion) concept? I take them as mathematical concepts, so that
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges wrote:
- The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathematical
object.
Otherwise
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This means you miss the point. The only assumption is comp by which I
mean the yes doctor hypothesis together with Church's thesis and a
minimal amount of arithmetical realism (AR: just the idea that
elementary arithmetical truth is independent of me, you ...This is
Le 17-mars-06, à 06:47, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 11-mars-06, à 10:59, Georges Quénot wrote (to John):
snip
Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I presented
fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is required
to adhere to such a framework (and
Hal Finney wrote:
The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem.
When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7.
But they are not really typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to
the integers, the information content of the average
Le 17-mars-06, à 06:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Yes, I was assuming that the descriptions lose information, or generalize, just as mammal is a generalization, and just as Bruno's duplication loses information. Otherwise, I would call it a re-representation of *ALL* the details of something,
Le 17-mars-06, à 13:42, John M a écrit :
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism? (Our
stupidity may allow also all the bad things that
happen.)
There is no REAL argument against solipsism. Nevertheless it is false,
imo.
So solipsism is false but
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
Where could the executive program have come from? Perhaps one could call
it God. I can think of no possibility other than It was always
there,
and eternal existence is a concept I
John M writes:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
Let me express how solipsism can be analyzed in the model where physical
reality is part of mathematical reality.
Let us adopt Bruno's UDA perspective: the Universal Dovetailer (UD)
is an abstract machine that runs all possible
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
To brent... (sorry I do not have the mail in my mailbox to reply to it).
So reality is what kicks back... Ok, but that was not the question (really),
I
want to know what distinction you do between abstract thing and real thing ?
You would say real things are
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 17-mars-06, à 01:31, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Hmmm... okay, so last questions what is an abstract thing ? what does
it means
to be abstract ? what render a thing real ? what does it means for it
to be
real ? what does it means to be real ?
If you kick it, it kicks
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 17-mars-06, à 13:42, John M a écrit :
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
(Our stupidity may allow also all the bad things
that happen.)
There is no REAL argument against solipsism.
--- Georges Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M a écrit :
to more recent posts:
1. do we have a REAL argument against solipsism?
I am not sure to understand what you mean by REAL
hereSKIP...
Arguments are just arguments.
(See my post to Bruno: I don't hold Wittgenstein
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
"Hal Finney" wrote: The first is that numbers are
really far more complex than they seem. When we think of numbers, we
tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7. But they are not really
typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to the integers,
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
That [The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
other mathematical objects which are only abstract. is what
I called a dualist view.
Dualism says there are two really existing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
adopt it either.
But can you
John M wrote:
[...]
Don't be a sourpus, I was not attacking YOU.
Well. I do not know exactly why I felt concerned.
I probably missed your point.
[...]
By George! (not Georges) don't you imply such things
into my mind after my decade under nazis and two under
commis, now 3+ in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Errmm..but if the universe is the set of all real
things, then they all share the property of realness.
Perhaps you mean: what is the difference between real
things and unreal things? Well, the difference is that
real things have properties and unreal things
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
Brent Meeker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Errmm..but if the universe is the set of all real
things, then they all share the property of realness.
Perhaps you mean: what is the difference between real
things and unreal things? Well, the difference is that
real things have
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain the world. QED.
This
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain the
34 matches
Mail list logo