2009/6/2 Jason Resch :
>
> I think these interviews provide a nice summary of his views:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY
I can't say I've ever seen a more extreme example of a narcissist.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~---
Bruno:
Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
Ronald
On May 31, 1:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 30 May 2009, at 23:08, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
>
Hi Kim, Hi Marty and others,
So it is perhaps time to do some math. Obviously, once we are open to
the idea that the fundamental reality could be mathematical, it is
normal to take some time to do some mathematics. Many people seems
also to agree here that the computationalist hypothesis co
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> BUT, if there is significant suffering likely in the worlds where I
>> lose, I might very well focus making a choice that will minimize that
>> suffering. In which case I will generally not base much of my
>> decision on the "probabil
Thank you for starting this discussion. I have only joined recently and
have little knowledge of your research. To see it laid out in the
sequence you describe should make it clear to me what it is all about.
I'm particularly interested in the interaction between consciousness and
computatio
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
> hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by
> {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
>
Let N be the biggest number in the set {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
Exercise: does the number N+1 belongs to the
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:43:59 +0200
> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
>
>
> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>> 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
>> hope you agree we can describe
On 02 Jun 2009, at 18:54, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
> Thank you for starting this discussion. I have only joined recently
> and
> have little knowledge of your research. To see it laid out in the
> sequence you describe should make it clear to me what it is all about.
>
> I'm particularly inte
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>> 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
>> hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by
>> {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
>>
>
> Let N be the biggest number in the set {0, 1, 2,
Torgny sais he is an ultrafinitist, although in some precedent post,
he shows he can be open to usual finitism.
Usual finitism is not in conflict with comp, except that it makes the
math more difficult, and the theology a bit too formal for my taste.
But ultrafinitism is incompatible with co
Thanks for the links. I'll look over them and hopefully I'll understand
what I see. At least if I have questions I can ask though maybe not in
this thread.
I don't yet know precisely what you mean by a machine but I do have
superficial knowledge of Turing machines; I'm assuming there is a
r
The beauty of all this, Brian, is that the correct (arithmetically)
universal machine will never been able to answer the question "are you
a machine?", but she (it) will be able to bet she is a (unknown)
machine. She will never know which one, and she will refute all
theories saying which
On 02 Jun 2009, at 18:46, Kelly Harmon wrote:
>
>> First, in the multiplication experience, the question of your choice
>> is not addressed, nor needed.
>> The question is really: what will happen to you. You give the right
>> answer above.
>>
>
> You're saying that there are no low probabili
What is the definition of "a machine"? I have a sense that there
is an intuitive one but not an explicit one, appropriate to the
discussions here.
James
- Original Message
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:29:47 PM
Subject: Re:
Bruno,
I appreciate the simplicity of the examples. My answers follow the
questions.marty a.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal"
>
>
> = begin
> ===
>
> 1) SET
>
> Informal definition:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> ...
> A set is entirely defined by its elements. Put in another way, we will
> say that two sets are equal if they have the same elements.
> Exercise 6. Let S be the set {0, 1, 45} and let M be the set described
> by {45, 0, 1}. Is it true or false that S is equal to M?
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
> Ronald
Maybe if he said Fortran IV or Fortran 66, it might have made the
point clearer. I know guys who still pr
17 matches
Mail list logo
