>
> Colin Hales wrote:
> No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you
> do
> either. You have apparently come to the recent realization that science
> just
> creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most
> likely
> they aren't) but for some
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> LZ:
> >
> >
> > Colin Hales wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >>The underlying structure unifies the whole
> >> system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the
> structurevia the deep structure right down into the very fabric of
> space.
> >> In a very real wa
Le 15-août-06, à 20:32, David Nyman a écrit :
> But don't we just 'derive' natural numbers by establishing a semantic
> equivalence between '6' and the collection of faces on a cube?
But what is a cube?
> And
> their additive and multiplicative structures likewise by analogy and
> generali
Le 15-août-06, à 20:52, complexitystudies a écrit :
> The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
> but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
> Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
No problem. I see you assume a physical universe. I don't. We have just
different theories.
Note
Le 15-août-06, à 21:09, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> 1), 2), 3), 4) are theorem in the comp theory. Note that the
>> zero-person "point of view" will appear also to be unnameable. Names
>> emerges through the third person pint of view.
>
> I'm beginning to see that, unname
David Nyman wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
>
> > What does "access to information" mean ? In a dynamic
> > universe, it means causality. In a Barbour-style universe
> > it means some "nows" coincidentally contain patterns representing other
> > "nows"
> > just as , in a world consisting of every possible pi
Ante diem XVII-um calendas Septembris as Aug. 15 (not XVI as 32-16)
John M wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>
> What is - 6 - ?
> Perfect number, you say.
> If I do NOT count - or quantize, does it have ANY meaning at all?
Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just assume).
To be c
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Note also I have not yet seen physical theory which does not assume
> numbers.
Physical theories assume the validity of mathematical statements.
That doesn't mean the existence of numbers. Everyone agrees that
numbers can't be empirically detected, so if they don't exist
Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
>>> mean
>>> it must be true that there is a number equal to the sum of its
>>> divsors
>>
Hi David,
Le 16-août-06, à 02:51, David Nyman a écrit :
> Good to see this. First off some grandmotherly-ish questions:
>
>> 1) The computationalist hypothesis (comp),
>>
>> This is the hypothesis that "I am a digital machine" in the
>> quasi-operational sense that I can survive through an ar
Le 16-août-06, à 03:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
> If we "realise that things cannot be as they seem" then this is new
> evidence
> and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not
> intend
> that "things are as they seem" be understood in a narrow sense, such as
> w
Rich Winkel wrote:
> According to Stathis Papaioannou:
>
>>Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test
>>new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence,
>>including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be
>>include
Le 16-août-06, à 03:39, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> I agree. Mathematics and logic are ways of constraining our
> propositions so
> we don't assert contradictions; contradictions of our own rules. But
> that
> doesn't mean they are strong enough to keep us from asserting
> absurdities.
I th
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>>Colin Hales wrote:
>
>
>>No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you
>>do
>>either. You have apparently come to the recent realization that science
>>just
>>creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most
>>lik
Le 16-août-06, à 15:28, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Note also I have not yet seen physical theory which does not assume
>> numbers.
>
> Physical theories assume the validity of mathematical statements.
> That doesn't mean the existence of numbers. Everyone agrees that
> numbers
Very wise words, Bruno.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Le 15-août-06, à 20:52, complexitystudies a écrit :
> The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
> b
I find Gunther's argumentation commendable, a 'wider' view and a free
spirit getting away from the age-old reductionist education-stuff of
subsequent many generations of scientists - maybe even to realize that
early thinkers, (ingenious though), had to rely on a meager empirical
cognitive invent
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 02:51, David Nyman a écrit :
>
>
>
> > Good to see this. First off some grandmotherly-ish questions:
> >
> >> 1) The computationalist hypothesis (comp),
> >>
> >> This is the hypothesis that "I am a digital machine" in the
> >> quasi-operatio
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The self-reference logics are born from the goal of escaping circular
> difficulties.
I think here I may have experienced a 'blinding flash' in terms of your
project. If, as I've said, I begin from self-reference - 'indexical
David', then I have asserted my 'necessary' poi
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 15:28, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
>>
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Note also I have not yet seen physical theory which does not assume
>>>numbers.
>>
>>Physical theories assume the validity of mathematical statements.
>>That doesn't mean the existence of number
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Very wise words, Bruno.
> John
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
>
>
>
>
> Le 15-août-06, à 20:52, complexitystudies a écrit :
>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
...
>>There I think I disagree. If there were no intelligent creatures like
>>ourselves, the infinite set of integers would not "exist" (I don't
>>think
>>they exist like my coffee does anyway). There would be "xx" but no
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But "2" is just another notation for "xx".
Why is "x" 'just another notation for "2"? or
why is "xx" not (just) a notation of 3?
(because Peano said so?)
John M
>
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wro
Hi Bruno,
> Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just assume).
A bold assumption, if I may say so.
> To be clear on that hypothesis, I do indeed find plausible that the
> number six is perfect, even in the case the "branes would not have
> collide, no big bang, no physic
> You might like William S. Cooper's "The
> Evolution of Reason" which argues that logic and mathematics are produced by
> evolution. Hence they would be common in any intelligent species that arose
> by evolution.
Thanks for the book tip, will certainly look into this!
Regards,
Günther
--~-
Hi,
A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I
have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting the
idea of hierarchical structures across. Nevetheless..
>> I think you are assuming a separateness of structure that does not
>> exist.
>
>
> It obv
complexitystudies wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just assume).
>
> A bold assumption, if I may say so.
>
> > To be clear on that hypothesis, I do indeed find plausible that the
> > number six is perfect, even in the case the "branes would not hav
> Hello to the List :-)
>
> The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
> but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
> Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
>
> Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
> first sight, but only because we look at this with human
> eye
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Hello to the List :-)
>>
>>The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
>>but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
>>Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
>>
>>Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
>>first sight, but only beca
Rich Winkel writes:
> According to Stathis Papaioannou:
> > Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test
> > new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence,
> > including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be
> >
30 matches
Mail list logo
