David Nyman writes:
> > They're not just simulating us, are they? They might have just slapped
> > together a virtual universe in an idle moment to see how it turns out. Maybe
> > they're more interested in star formation, or bacteria or something. Is an
> > E. coli
> > in your gut justified in
Norman Samish writes:
> In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a
> simulation. . ."
> To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I
> think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know.
> Such 'simulation'
Bruno Marchal writes:
> >> I know it looks counterintuitive, but an AI can know which computer is
> >> running and how many they are. It is a consequence of comp, and the
> >> UDA
> >> shows why. The answer is:
> >> the computer which is running are the relative universal number which
> >> e
Peter Jones writes:
> > > Timeless universe, universes where everything that can exist
> > > does exist, are not well founded empirically.
> >
> > So we should understand that you would criticize any notion, sometimes
> > brought by physicists, of "block-universe".
>
>
> Yes, I certainly would!
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> I don't know if block universe theories are true or not, but the subjective
> passage of time is not an argument against them. If mind is computation, do
> you believe that a conscious computation can tell if it is being run as a
> sequential
> series of steps or in
Stathis,
thanks for a reply in reason - you said the million
dollar word. (I will come back to 'quote' it).
First:
As Norman, I, too, was a very smart kid (and am still
very modest - ha ha) and had ALL my experiences of a
5-year old at 5. Since then I collected 2-3 additional
'experienced' featu
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Norman Samish writes:
>
>
>> In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living
>> in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the
>> usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in'
>> according to the li
According to Stathis Papaioannou:
>The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept
>provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
>this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light
>of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that
>th
Communication - human and in language, I suppose, depends on words we say,
understand and assign (some) meaning to. So here is a bit of nitpicking
about the words you used below: (please, Peter, don't take it personally -
thank you):
Properties: Would you reduce them to green, hard, big, hot etc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Communication - human and in language, I suppose, depends on words we say,
> understand and assign (some) meaning to. So here is a bit of nitpicking
> about the words you used below: (please, Peter, don't take it personally -
> thank you):
>
> Properties: Would you r
Brent Meeker wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> >
> > David Nyman wrote:
> ...
> >>Well, if 'experience' is the fact of *being* differentiable existence,
> >>and 'the physical' is the observable relations thereof, then both
> >>ultimately 'supervene' on there being something rather than nothing.
> >
> >
> > N
1Z wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Communication - human and in language, I suppose, depends on words we say,
>>understand and assign (some) meaning to. So here is a bit of nitpicking
>>about the words you used below: (please, Peter, don't take it personally -
>>thank you):
>>
>>Pro
Brent Meeker wrote:
> As my physics prof, Jurgen Ehlers used to say, "Before we can say whether or
> not a thing exists we must know some of it's properities." So to know
> whether or not bigfoot exists we need to know enough properties of the
> concept 'bigfoot', like "big", "hairy", "bipedal
!Z:
Is "matter" a property vs "not matter"?
later you substituted 'matter' with 'substrate' when you drew the identity
as being "interchangeable" to. So is radiation "matterly matter" or an
interchange? I told you I am nitpicking.
I am not accepting the identification of existence as "exist" must
1Z wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>1Z wrote:
>>
>>>David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
Well, if 'experience' is the fact of *being* differentiable existence,
and 'the physical' is the observable relations thereof, then both
ultimately 'supervene' on there being something rather than
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:45 AM
Subject: ?
Bruno:
I have an idea about separating your explanatory ROADMAP posts for us from
chatter:
All ReplyButton posts include "RE:"
If you take the time to write in as Subjec
1Z wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>>As my physics prof, Jurgen Ehlers used to say, "Before we can say whether or
>>not a thing exists we must know some of it's properities." So to know
>>whether or not bigfoot exists we need to know enough properties of the
>>concept 'bigfoot', like "bi
Brent Meeker wrote:
>That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
>pointed out was an unsupported inference.
>
>
IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I think" MUST BE THE STARTING
POINT - for any conscious observer THERE IS NO OTHER OBSERVABLE STARTING
POINT!
George Levy wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
>>pointed out was an unsupported inference.
>>
>>
>
>
> IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I think" MUST BE THE STARTING
> POINT - for any conscious observer THERE IS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> !Z:
> Is "matter" a property vs "not matter"?
what would it be a property *of* ?
> later you substituted 'matter' with 'substrate' when you drew the identity
> as being "interchangeable" to. So is radiation "matterly matter" or an
> interchange? I told you I am nitpi
Brent Meeker wrote:
> That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
> pointed out was an unsupported inference. The most that could be said is,
> "There's thinking." If your ontology includes processes like "thinking"
> then I suppose it does precede your empistemolo
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
> APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
> agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statistics) of structure of an
> underly
Brent Meeker wrote:
> It's a somewhat beyond my expertise, but as I understand these theories of
> cosmogony it's analogous to Hawking radiation: Pair production produces a
> virtual quantum particle/anti-particle pair. Inflation is so rapid that it
> pulls them apart and provides the energy t
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
> APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
> agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statistics) of structure of an
> underly
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an unsupported inference.
IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I think" MUST BE THE STARTING
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Possible things: possible in OUR (limited) view? or possible, even if we
> 'think' it is impossible (for us)? BTW Harry Potter things are all
> possible, they exist in "our" universe, since human minds (part of
> our universe) have it. So are the n
George Levy wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>George Levy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an unsupported inference.
>>>IMHO everything hinges on "I
1Z wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
>>Possible things: possible in OUR (limited) view? or possible, even if we
>>'think' it is impossible (for us)? BTW Harry Potter things are all
>>possible, they exist in "our" universe, since human minds (part of
>>our universe) have it.
Peter Jones writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > I don't know if block universe theories are true or not, but the subjective
> > passage of time is not an argument against them. If mind is computation, do
> > you believe that a conscious computation can tell if it is being run as a
> > se
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an unsupported in
John M writes:
> When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing
> physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'?
> (I just wanted to tease members of this list.
> Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and
> such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.)
>
> An
Our own ignarance is implicit when we say that everything is
provisional. The oracle at Delphi said that Socrates was the wisest
of all men, while Socrates claimed ther he was ignorant. There is no
contradiction here: Socrates was wise *because* he understood the
limits of his knowledge. Som
32 matches
Mail list logo
