Stephan,
Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.
I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the
multiverse.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Now this is
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
Roger,
Please tell us how you know that.
If you refer back to Leibniz,
then you are treating
science like a religion,
making Liebniz into a prophet
that must be believed.
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads are
Hi Bruno Marchal
There is objective truth, meaning truth that can be proven and expressed in
symbols that you can share.
Thus it is not personal or private. Scientific and computer truth is like that.
But the more profound truth is subjective, because it is personal, meaning that
you simply
Hi Roger,
The unextended aspect of monads is just an expression of the fact that
within the monadology, it is not embedded in a space and thus has no
measurable size.WE cannot think of monads as we think of atoms in a
void. The idea is that we can recover the concept of an external space
as a
Hi Richard,
I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a
selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that
this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are
the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves
Stephan,
Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind,
but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time,
exactly what Pratt seems to be saying.
That's why I called it an axiom or assumption.
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Richard,
Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version
of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something
consistent with GR.
On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind,
but IMO only
Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR.
I thought it was inconsistent with QM.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Richard,
Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of
this for multiple 1p points of view so
Hi Richard,
The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not
inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a
3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't
objectively real.
On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Please tell me
Scientific writing is accurate, but usually not concise, because it must be
detailed.
The truth is in text on paper, is objective, shareable, essentially provable.
It does not and indeed should not,
go beyond what is reported. I suppose one would call this context-free.
An example would be a
Hi Richard,
There are an infinite number of different monads, since
the world is filled with them and each is a
different perspective on the whole of the rest.
Not only that, but they keep changing, as
all life does.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no
Hi Roger,
OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the
appearance of extension.
On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended.
You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended.
Hi benjayk
The left brain metaphor can understand precise logical statements or
statements in words.
Also called objective truths. What computers can deal with. Truth in symbolic
form.
Context-free statements.
IMHO The right brain metaphor perceives what computers cannot understand (yet),
Hi Richard Ruquist
I don't know if compact manifolds are unique, that's your forte.
But monads are definitely not unique-- they are infinitely varied and keep
varying.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
Hi Roger,
Indeed! This corresponds to non-distributive logical lattices.But we
still need more details. The best attempt that i have seen on deriving
extension was Roger Penrose' spin network idea.
On 8/23/2012 8:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Some entities (like my mouse) are
I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah),
to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely wideband.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
-
Hi Richard,
Ron Garret's talk here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
is about the best discussion in lay terms that I have found. See at
0:53:46 that there is no real one classical universe. It is just an
abstraction that we invent in our minds to make big picture sense of
Hi Roger,
What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The
point is that /there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic
description of its perception/. We can still imagine what such a
supremum http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Supremum.html exist but such
only are real for
Hi Roger,
I am just trying for precision. ;-)
On 8/23/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah),
to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely
wideband.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Richard Ruquist
That's why I am pleased ro have you as a fellow explorer.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver:
Hi John Mikes
I think intuition is something like looking for
a familiar face in a crowd if you are lost.
That somehow has to do with context or memory.
One way home feels more right than the other way home.
Maybe you don't know the name of the street,
or even if the street itself looks
Hi meekerdb
Yes, I was wrong, strings do have extension.
So they are in spacetime.
String theory however does not have extension,
so I at least can treat it monadically,
since monads have no extension.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
Stephan,
Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness
although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith?
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Richard,
On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Hi meekerdb
You said According to you, computers are never aware of anything, so
everything they produce is intuition.
No, intuition is an experience. You need awareness even though it may be
subconscious.
it is known, however, that monads however are capable of subconscious
or unconscious
Hi Richard,
That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts
appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves
through some unseen intelligence).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could
Roger,
Who cares if a theory is not substantial.
What matters is if the theory correctly
or approximately models the substance.
You are arguing against a straw man of your creation.
But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent
and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel
Hi John,
If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do.
But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological
firewall between mind and matter. Naturally, it cannot solve
the mind/body problem, and has no clue what mind or God is,
but demands proof of
Roger,
Well, regarding human consciousness,
I believe that our subsconscious contains an invisible intelligence
that seems to provide answers that we cannot figure out consciously.
Call it the soul if you wish, or the higher self,
but may I suggest that that entity may have contact with the
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
I beg to differ:
Fiction and performance is where people lie to an audience/readership for
money, sometimes stumbling on something true. Sometimes even funny,
movingly, true.
Science is where people do the true stuff. Sometimes bullshitting people
for money.
Expertise and its derived authority
Hi Stephen P. King
He does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between
extended (body)
and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out
that problem.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God,
Hi Stephen P. King
Pratt does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between
extended (body)
and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out
that problem.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no
Hi meekerdb
This is not rocket science.
To be aware you must have both subject and object:
awareness = subject + object
Neither materialism nor science can provide a subject, since a subject must be
subjective.
So neither one will permit awareness. Start studying the mnonadology.
Roger
Hi meekerdb
IMHO Empty strings are not monads, they are just empty strings.
Monads are inextended. Even though they may contain nothing,
empty strings are still extended as I see it.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
Hi Stephen P. King
Science advances one funeral at a time.
- Max Planck
Max
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver:
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality
of the universe to
centres of force, which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every
centre of force is a substance,
an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such
Hi Stephen P. King
If you can measure it, or potentially do so it's extended.
Mass. size, color, voltage, etc. Whatever physical
science deals with.
Science thus deals exclusively with extended objects.
If you can think of something, the thought (Where did i put that damn tie ?)
is
Hi Stephen P. King
No problem.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 08:26:50
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk
How do you know that?
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything
Hi Stephen P. King
Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a
rhetorical phrase.
All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads.
If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in
some cases (see below) it is a monad.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
Roger,
It seems to me that you are preaching the religion of monads based on
Leibniz.
Thus as in most religions, there is no opportunity for critical thinking
and research.
Almost all of what you say of monads below disagrees with string theory.
BTW I do not have any questions you are tired of
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
So what is your definition of computer, and what is your
evidence/reasoning
that you yourself are not contained in that definition?
There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean
the
usual physical computer,
Why not use the notion of
The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary.
It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads
are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) .
Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, is like a CPU (central
processing unit or chip)
of a net of
Hi Richard Ruquist
IMHO Intelligence pervades Nature.
Because life is intelligent to some degree, it
can't function without knowing how to create energy out
of energy.
Nothing would work if Nature didn't contain some innate intelligence.
Certainly intuition would be impossible.
Leibniz would
Hi Richard Ruquist
My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try
to follow him as closely as I can.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Richard Ruquist
No leap of faith is needed for consciousness.
All you have to do is open your eyes.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result
of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at
all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see
what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of
Hi Richard Ruquist
Yes, I try to preach Leibniz chapter and verse.
I'm still waiting for critical thinking from you.
Whatever is in spacetime, such as a string, is extended.
Monads aree inextended.
I try not to dabble with string theory, at least at this stage.
Roger Clough,
Hi Roger,
ontological firewall ? Could you elaborate on exactly what that
means to you? BY Pratt, the difference between the two is just a matter
of perspective, like the figure-ground. One cannot see both at the same
time without cancelling both out. Pratt builds on how the mind and body
Hi Roger,
What is this quote from? It is interesting! I don't quite agree with it,
as the centers are not all that a monad must include for its definition...
On 8/23/2012 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing
the
Hi Stephen P. King
I try to avoid the word existence
because, as you show, it can be used in a number of ways
ontologically.
That's why I use extended and inextended instead.
Or try to.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
Hi Roger,
I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad.
On 8/23/2012 11:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying
things, just a rhetorical phrase.
All physical things in the world are substances
Hi Stephen P. King
Complexity seems to be the threshold of a magical transformation.
The more commonsense solution or explanation is to invoke Leibniz-like
downward causation.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
programming a computer'
If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement
PERIOD. Any limitation a computer has you have the
It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness.
Weak emergence is like your grains of sand.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Richard,
Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of
Hi Stephen P. King
No, it's not just a matter of perspective, and his philosophy is illogical.
The firewall is there to separate things that should not and can not possibly
mix or
exhange anything between them by themselves. Most prominently, in materialism,
it is the firewall between
Roger,
All I have ever given you is critical thinking based on string theory. but
you seem uninterested.
How does parroting what Leibniz amount to critical thinking. It's really
religion.
Your limiting yourself by not learning string theory
which is all about monads..
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23,
Don't be silly with me
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
No leap of faith is needed for consciousness.
All you have to do is open your eyes.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd
I know and that's not science
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try
to follow him as closely as I can.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Richard,
I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an
explanation of what you mean by ...method of Godel sufficient to define a
consciousness?
Millions of times cause it just ain't true.
But I do not want to interfere with your religion
In string theory monads are definitely things in themselves.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Monads are reference to things, are like
Hi Stephen P. King
It's from
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_leib.html
and was just the first link that came up in Google.
Just Google on
monad
and a whole set of other links will pop up.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd
More religion
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary.
It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads
are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) .
Thus the supreme
Hi Richard,
Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence
Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property
is irreducible to its individual constituents.
OK, but irreducibility would have almost the same meaning as implying
the non-existence of relations
Hi Richard,
OK! I'll read it.
On 8/23/2012 1:16 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am not sure what you mean. Is there a
Stephan,
Strong emergence follows from Godel's incompleteness because in any
consistent system there are truths that cannot be derived from the axioms
of the system. That is what is meant by incompleteness.
Sounds like what you just said. No?
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stephen P.
Hi Roger,
OK, but I am a bit partial toward descriptions that allow for
something approximating a mathematical description, if only to make them
more intelligible in technical communications. The Swami's discussion is
more theological than anything else.
On 8/23/2012 1:18 PM, Roger
Hi Richard,
You mean provable statements not truths per se... I guess. OK,
I haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep Godel's
theorems reserved for special occasions. It has my experience that they
can be very easily misapplied.
On 8/23/2012 1:24 PM, Richard Ruquist
Hi Stephen P. King
hmmm.
Quanta and monads are singular entities.
QM has the dualism particle/wave
Monadology has extended/inextended.
These might be construed as similar.
But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective
unless the waveform is subjective.
Roger
Hi Richard Ruquist
I meant that literally, not as an insult.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
The waveform is subjective as it represents a particular quantum state.
In COMP terms it is 3p. But comp people may not think of it as subjective
since every quantum state is realized and therefore all quanta are
objective.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Leibniz does not contradict science in any way.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver:
Hi Richard Ruquist
What isn't true ? Give me an example.
Leibniz isn't a religion, but doesn't contradict relion.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content
Hi Richard Ruquist
Sorry, I used the word God instead of supreme monad.
I did indicate that the first time at least,
Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God...
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/23/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
On 8/23/2012 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
hmmm.
Quanta and monads are singular entities.
QM has the dualism particle/wave
Monadology has extended/inextended.
These might be construed as similar.
But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective
unless the
Dear Alberto,
I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am not
conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and yet am
conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the sense of
rejecting relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern progressives
On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen,
This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left
brain decisions for human safety.
Ought must rule over is (or
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or
nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want
into
this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters.
A sentence (any string of information) can be
Sorry, I am not going to answer to your whole post, because frankly the
points you make are not very interesting to me.
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
John Clark Aug 23 01:08PM -0400
We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things
because
of the laws of nature, and if we do not then we are random.
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Do computers have intuition ?
Certainly. The self driving cars that the people at Google and others have
had so much success with lately wouldn't work without intuition; the car's
memory banks are filled with statistical
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing
to do.
Correct.
But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological
firewall between mind and matter.
I make changes in the
2012/8/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing
to do.
Correct.
But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological
firewall
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree
with such an idea: I use the scientific method, which means that you
cannot disagree with me without showing a precise flaw at some step in
the reasoning.
You seem to follow the
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
OK, take the sentence:
'Not all sentences have unambigous truth values - by the way you won't be
able to determine that this sentence doesn't have a unambigous truth value
by using a computer '
OK, if I changed
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
sequences of numbers, making the body problem into a problem of
arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal
machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above,
On 8/23/2012 2:18 PM, benjayk wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory
space.
This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it
just uses its own memory space.
What constitutes the memory space of the
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined
externally.
I see, you did it but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it
for no
On 8/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined
externally.
I
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
So what is your definition of computer, and what is your
evidence/reasoning
that you yourself are not contained in that definition?
There is no perfect definition of computer.
Dear Richard,
Your paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf is very
interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular automaton
theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d manifold would be a
single fixed structure that, while conceivably capable of running the
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or
nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want
into
this sentence... or like the stuff that
Stephan,
Thanks for the compliment.
I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chalmers and S_T
Yau.
Time inflates along with 3 dimensions in the big bang.
Leaving 6 dimensions behind to compactify or curl up
into tiny balls 1000 planck lengths across each with 500 holes.
So each
Honestly I do not find the Gödel theorem a limitation for computers. I
think that Penrose and other did a right translation from the Gódel theorem
to a problem of a Turing machine,. But this translation can be done in a
different way.
It is possible to design a program that modify itself by
A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says:
'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my
understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be
self-referential proof by contradiction, except to mention that Penrose in
Shadows of the
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
