Le 26-juil.-06, à 13:34, Russell Standish wrote :
>
> Yes, although you do have a different perception of theology to Rees,
> and indeed practically all other scientists I know of. I won't comment
> on theologians of course, I don't really know any all that well.
>
> Not to say your perception i
Le 27-juil.-06, à 03:21, David Nyman a écrit :
>> Mmmmhh This sounds a little bit too much idealist for me. Numbers
>> exist with some logic-mathematical priority, and then self-intimacy
>> should emerge from many complex relations among numbers. Also, the
>> many
>> universes (both with co
Le 28-juil.-06, à 02:52, John M a écrit :
> Then again is the 'as - if' really a computation as in our today's
> vocabulary? Or, if you insist (and Bruno as well, that it IS) is it
> conceivable as our digital process, that embryonic first approach, or
> we
> may hope to understand later on a
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
>
> > > There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
> > > > not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
> > > > require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be
> > > > physical
> > > > im
Please see after your remark/question at the end
John
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument
Le 28-juil.-06, à 02:52, John M a écrit :
> Then again is the 'as - if' really a computation as
Thanks, Colin,
I feel we also agree in your last sentence statement, however I could not
decide whether "abstraction" is reductionist model forming or a
generalization into wider horizons? Patterns - I feel - are IMO definitely
reductive.
that scale-game (40-50 orders of m. down) seems to me
Russell Standish writes, regarding http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607227 :
> Thanks for giving a digested explanation of the argument. This paper
> was discussed briefly on A-Void a few weeks ago, but I must admit to
> not following the argument too well, nor RTFA.
>
> My comment on the observer
>
> Thanks, Colin,
> I feel we also agree in your last sentence statement, however I could
not
> decide whether "abstraction" is reductionist model forming or a
> generalization into wider horizons? Patterns - I feel - are IMO
definitely reductive.
Abstraction I would characterise as a mapping i
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
> > The constraints (a) and (b) you mention are ad hoc and an unnecessary
> > complication. Suppose Klingon
> > computers change their internal code every clock cycle according to the
> > well-documented radioactive
> > decay pattern of a sacred stone 2000 years
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
>
>
>>> The constraints (a) and (b) you mention are ad hoc and an
>>> unnecessary complication. Suppose Klingon computers change their
>>> internal code every clock cycle according to the well-documented
>>> radioactive decay pattern
10 matches
Mail list logo
