Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Aug 2009, at 02:02, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I exist could be, perhaps, tautological. But Reality? I don't think so. Certainly not from inside. What is reality, beyond our conscious experience of existence? This is

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some vocabulary adjustments. Bruno On 17 Aug 2009, at 03:54, David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/14 Bruno

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Aug 2009, at 04:08, russell standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:03:41PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Look at this in this way: may be it is because I like the stuffy stuff so much that I want to assoir it on something more solid than ^^ seat? - base

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread 1Z
On 16 Aug, 16:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Aug 2009, at 14:34, 1Z wrote: On 14 Aug, 09:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are dismissing the first person indeterminacy. A stuffy TM can   run a computation. But if a consciousness is attached to that  

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not exist? Prime number does not exist? That

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/17 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Look, I have already said that I am not going to get into an argument about which pixies exist. Forgive me for butting in, but I wonder whether there is a level at which your metaphysical disagreement is perhaps somewhat more resolvable? It might be

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
On 17 Aug, 08:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much   precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal   Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some vocabulary   adjustments. Thanks

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is This leads to major difficulties, even before approaching the consciousness

A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread ronaldheld
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1 Any comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Aug 2009, at 12:39, David Nyman wrote: On 17 Aug, 08:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by

Re: A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
I've seen John Baez suggest that On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: arxiv.org:0908.2063v1 Any comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that without platonism, the square

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not exist? Prime

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 11:23, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/17 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Look, I have already said that I am not going to get into an argument about which pixies exist. Forgive me for butting in, but I wonder whether there is a level at which your metaphysical

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is This leads to major difficulties, even before

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Rex Allen
I'm afraid you are solipsist. Ha! Ouch! But it's not quite as simple as that. I don't deny that there MAY be something that causes consciousness, BUT if there is...this ultimately doesn't matter. In the final view, the conclusion is the same...consciousness experience just is what it is.

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by   mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or   explain. But what is this primary matter? If it is entirely divorced from

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 18:51, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Jesse Mazer wrote: Does Bruno assume arithmetic is really real or just a really good model, and can the difference be known? I don't think Bruno believes there is anything else for arithemeic *to* model.

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Flammarion
On 17 Aug, 20:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread John Mikes
Rex, (I guess the unsigned text below came from you) thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on Conscious Experience! John Mikes On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yep. I have no problem with any of that Really? Let's see then. The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a statement like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality and thus being forced to accept

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I am trying to persuade Bruno that his argument has an implict assumption of Platonism that should be made explicit. An  assumption of Platonism as a non-observable background might be justifiiable in the way you suggest, but it does need to be

Re: A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: I've seen John Baez suggest that For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut). Were those really the days? D On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld

RE: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. But what is this primary matter? If it

RE: A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Jesse Mazer
David Nyman wrote: On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: I've seen John Baez suggest that For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut). In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of

Re: A Possible Mathematical Structure for Physics

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com: David Nyman wrote: On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: I've seen John Baez suggest that For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have stayed up so late watching Woodstock - the director's cut).

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread David Nyman
2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer wrote: Peter Jones wrote: Primary matter is very much related to the fact that some theories of physics work and other do not. It won't tell you which ones work, but it will tell you why there is a difference. It solves the white rabbit problem. We don't see logically

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yep. I have no problem with any of that Really? Let's see then. The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a statement like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality and thus

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-17 Thread Rex Allen
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, (I guess the unsigned text below came from you) thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on Conscious Experience! John Mikes Indeed! Thanks John, glad you liked it! On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM,