A Dialog comparing Comp with Leibniz's metaphysics
Abstract
The principal conclusion of this discussion is that there is a striking
similarity between comp and the metaphysics of Leibniz,
for example that the natural numbers of comp are indeed monads,
but a critical difference is that not
Thanks for sharing.
What is left out sadly, is the technical aspect of how to open oneself to
that state, when one does not climb mountains or can afford space shuttle
flights (or even want a bit of variety?). A possible answer: techné of
ecstasy or how to escape from oneself/appearance and
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is
equally
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me
I forgot some words: (of computations, in bold and underlined
below). Sorry.
On 01 Sep 2012, at 16:15, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno
Not bad as a religious show.
Yes, dilettantish emphathizing scientific terms are taking the role of
priests, and bright telescope images of the universe are incresingly
taking the place of the tinsel of the temples. The bright screen of the
Iphones going from the pocket to the hand and back
*Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the
deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils
of game theory. ** *
In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of
sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious
2012/8/31 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.
in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or
On 9/1/2012 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the physical time too, as
the whole physics emerges from the first person plural indeterminacy. But to define
computation, we need a thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates,
On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
From experience I know people
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
While computers are causal
Yes.
perception is not causal. Nothing that living things do is causal.
Nothing??? So when you're running and perceive a brick wall directly in
front of you getting larger by the second
John C
I usually appreciate your ways... not in the post below.
The word 'causal' is ambiguous: in (my) deterministic agnosticism
everything is entailed (var: causal) but we know only part of the
circumstances of entailment. Even what we know is not so sure 'fits' the
infinite complexity BEYOND
Bruno wrote:
*Intuitively it is the limit of the number going through your actual state
in bigger and bigger finite portions of the UD*. Technically you need the
logic S4grz1, Z1* and X1* to define it properly. We know it is exists if
comp is correct, and so we an use it to test comp. The measure
13 matches
Mail list logo
