On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
> The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
> Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But how is
> this transition made? At this point I
On 12 Sep, 15:32, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For further
> research, it is then natural to identify imaginable things with their
> descriptions and to choose a simple alphabet for expressing the
> descriptions (e.g. strings of 0 and 1).
How would you express "A thing such that
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
> > The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
> > Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postu
Dear Günther,
Le 12-sept.-07, à 16:49, Günther Greindl a écrit :
> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
appear. "Axioms" are just proviso
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
> These sorts of discussions "No-justification", "Zero-information
> principle", "All of mathematics" and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and
> Nothing (or should that be "duelling") are really just motivators for
> getting at the ensemble, which turns
Youness Ayaita wrote:
> ...
> I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
> somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
> course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to
> a preimage x, we usually must know a formula first. But
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> ...
>
> I agree with this. You can rule out a theory when it leads to a
> contradiction, but only *once* you get that contradiction. (A theory
> can be contradictory without you ever knowing that fact).
>
A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need no
Dear Bruno,
>> The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per
>> definition (that is what following from the axioms mean).
>
> Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would
> appear.
You are right, my above sentence was too simple.
New try:
All sentence
On 13 Sep, 12:47, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
> > > The amazing result of these simple consideration
Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to which I
have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement' cuts my guts.
==
"...I like very much David Deutsch's
idea that if we are scientist we are in principle willing to know that
our theory is wrong, but t
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Youness Ayaita wrote:
> > ...
> > I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
> > somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
> > course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is a
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> > These sorts of discussions "No-justification", "Zero-information
> > principle", "All of mathematics" and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and
> > Nothing (or should that be "du
I want to correct an error, the "1st idea" in my last reply was
erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.
So, I restrict my argument
Youness Ayaita wrote:
> I want to correct an error, the "1st idea" in my last reply was
> erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
> do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
> possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useles
14 matches
Mail list logo
