Hi John,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit :
> Stathis, Bruno,
>
> This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a
> way to
> 'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without
> the
> 'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
I am
Hi Mark,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit :
>
> John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look
> at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in
> the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly
> prior to anything e
On Feb 2, 10:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is a bit ambiguous. The UD dovetails on all computations. Let us
> write (comp i k j) for k-th step of computation i on input j.
> One computation can then be identified (in a first approximation at
> least) with a sequence like
Hi jason,
Le 05-févr.-07, à 17:05, Jason a écrit :
>
> On Feb 2, 10:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is a bit ambiguous. The UD dovetails on all computations. Let us
>> write (comp i k j) for k-th step of computation i on input j.
>> One computation can then be identif
Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
> As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as
> a subset.
This means that even if "my theory" makes disappear all (1-person)
white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does
not reintroduce new one.
So now we have to find some way sto tackle the problem of finding the
right level of abstraction to pursue ...
Bruno
Le 03-févr.-07, à 10:05, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal writes:
>
> > What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp
> > eludes the "materia
On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, "Why do
> people have values?" If you have values then that mean some things will be
> good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want
Tom Caylor writes:
> On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > OK. But in
> that case your question is just half of the question, "Why do people have
> values?" If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some
> will be bad - a weed is just a flower in
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.
I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.
Hal Ruhl writes:
> Hi Bruno:> > I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.> >
> Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its > evolving universes - meaning
> I take it that all > successive states are fully logical consequences of
> their prior state.
You mean "physical conseque
10 matches
Mail list logo
