Re: Some books on category and topos theory

2008-11-07 Thread Mirek Dobsicek
Bruno Marchal in an older post wrote: Also, can you elaborate a bit more on the motivation behind category theory? Why was it invented, and what problems does it solve? What's the relationship between category theory and the idea that all possible universes exists? Tim makes a very

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-nov.-08, à 21:45, rmiller a écrit : At 10:54 AM 11/6/2008, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Nov 2008, at 02:37, Thomas Laursen wrote: Hi everyone, I am a complete layman but still got the illusion that maybe one day I would be able to understand the probability part of MW if

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Günther Greindl
Thomas, MW must be some how different from the same concept in everyday language? In the latter probably just means likely to happen but if EVERYTHING happens then how can the concept make sense? I guess it must be two different concepts, then? I wouldn't say so. Always look at the word

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hello Günther, Hello Bruno, More exactly: I can conceive fake policemen in paper are not conscious, and that is all I need to accept I can be fail by some zombie. Thus I can conceive zombies. Ok, but conceivability does not entail possibilty. I think philosophical zombies are

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Günther Greindl
Hi Bruno, I can agree for all computational states of some (universal) machine. If you don't precise what you mean by state it is a bit too much general. Imo. I mean either: all computational states OR all physical states - depending on whether comp or phys is true. Where the difference

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Thomas, epistemic state of an agent, or in the proverbial 10-year-old's words, knowledge of the state of affairs from a certain point of view. This is the Bayesian interpretation of probability. EVERYTHING happens can be interpreted as an expression in terms of the frequentist interpretation of

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Nov 2008, at 03:27, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jason, Le 04-nov.-08, à 23:21, Jason Resch a écrit : although I agree with Brent, if the simulated world in the computer is entirely cut off from causal

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Anna's explanation was from the frequentist side. Gunther's was from the Bayesian side. On Nov 7, 10:13 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas, epistemic state of an agent, or in the proverbial 10-year-old's words, knowledge of the state of affairs from a certain point of view.  

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anna's explanation was from the frequentist side. Gunther's was from the Bayesian side. I actually agree with the Bayesian point of view, but I was trying to avoid injecting expectation into a description of how infinite

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement, which is itself encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the

Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal sense: a lack of mathematical contradiction. All things that

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Anna, OK, I understand. Thomas, as another reference point for study, what I refer to as the point of view from the Plenitude, or Plotinus' One, has frequently been referred to as the God's eye point of view. (I didn't bring that up at first because I believe in a God who is different from the

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
(By the way, the personal God is the only one in whom a person can possibly believe, but that could be another topic.) Absolutist statements make proof by contradiction easy. :) Anna --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is personal (i.e. from the point of view of a person), or 1+1=2. Not all absolutist

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Nov 2008, at 08:51, Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement, which is itself encoded (indeed

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
I like this topic. I will think about it a little first. By the way, is your use of blue and red a metaphor for Obama and McCain? ;) Tom On Nov 7, 10:44 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
... or akin to this from the QTI thread: In the standard view, believing in philosophical zombies means believing that it's logically possible for there to be a physical copy of me that's identical to me in every physical way, except that it's not conscious. (Like Dennett, I think that's

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is personal (i.e.

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like this topic. I will think about it a little first. By the way, is your use of blue and red a metaphor for Obama and McCain? ;) Wow. :) Subconciously, perhaps in part. But it's mainly because the last pair of

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hin 2008/11/7 Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anna, OK, I understand. Thomas, as another reference point for study, what I refer to as the point of view from the Plenitude, or Plotinus' One, has frequently been referred to as the God's eye point of view. (I didn't bring that up at first

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Günther Greindl wrote: Thomas, MW must be some how different from the same concept in everyday language? In the latter probably just means likely to happen but if EVERYTHING happens then how can the concept make sense? I guess it must be two different concepts, then? I wouldn't

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
A. Wolf wrote: But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal sense: a lack of mathematical

Re: Some books on category and topos theory

2008-11-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Nov 2008, at 15:57, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: Bruno Marchal in an older post wrote: Also, can you elaborate a bit more on the motivation behind category theory? Why was it invented, and what problems does it solve? What's the relationship between category theory and the idea that

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
On Nov 7, 11:11 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point of view is subjective, or

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Nov 2008, at 08:51, Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement,

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
If you don't require some mathematical model of evolution of states determining what happens in a Markovian way (like a Schroedinger eqn for example) then one consistent mathematical model is just a list:... Anna wore a red sweater on 6 Nov 2008, Anna wore a blue sweater on 7 Nov 2008, Anna

Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

2008-11-07 Thread Jason Resch
Bruno, Thanks for your answers, I think it is safe to say we are on the same page with the UDA. I accept mathematical realism and therefore the existence of abstract Turing machines defining the computational histories of all programs, or the equations of string theory defining all true

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
A. Wolf wrote: If you don't require some mathematical model of evolution of states determining what happens in a Markovian way (like a Schroedinger eqn for example) then one consistent mathematical model is just a list:... Anna wore a red sweater on 6 Nov 2008, Anna wore a blue sweater on 7

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
Does model imply a theory which predicts the evolution of states (possibly probabilistic) so that the state of universe yesterday limits what might exist today? No. Model means a mathematical object. One specific, unchanging, crystalline object you can hold in your hand and look at from a

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
A. Wolf wrote: Does model imply a theory which predicts the evolution of states (possibly probabilistic) so that the state of universe yesterday limits what might exist today? No. Model means a mathematical object. One specific, unchanging, crystalline object you can hold in your

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
But not a logical contradiction. It would just contradict our assumed model of physics, i.e. a nomological contradiction. I realize I can't give a concrete example from physics due to the lack of total human understanding, so it is difficult to get across the exact point. If we presume that

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
A. Wolf wrote: But not a logical contradiction. It would just contradict our assumed model of physics, i.e. a nomological contradiction. I realize I can't give a concrete example from physics due to the lack of total human understanding, so it is difficult to get across the exact

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread A. Wolf
So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)... would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value. Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for sapience? Anna

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
On Nov 7, 10:44 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not self-contradictory constitutes everything.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal

Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
A. Wolf wrote: So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)... would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value. Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Thomas Laursen
Many thanks for your fine answers, and patience with an ignorant. When I said probability I meant from the frequentist side, or from what Tegmark has called bird's point of view (which I guess corospond to what Tom calls God's point of view, - whether or not one believes) But the subjective

Re: Probability

2008-11-07 Thread Thomas Laursen
since it's a sequence of trillions and trillions of real (micro-)events. PS. Of course a macro-event is also real but it's not a fundamental event, and therefore the concept probability must be USED differently here, even though the concept itself is the same. Does that sound right?