On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:14:47PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/28/2012 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >How do you answer the person who get the 1-7 points, and concludes
> >(as he *believes* in a primary material world, and in comp) that
> >this proves that a physical universe, to procede cons
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, in Leibniz's metaphysics, the only active agent
is the supreme monad (the One),
who essentially does everything-- but performs
actions needed or requested by its submonads.
One might think of the supreme monad as creating
all actions. As universal mind.
The actions them
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solipsism to our universe such that
other multiverse versions of oiur universe coul
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can
they dream?
Yes, the universal numbers can have concept.
Dear Bruno,
Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a univer
Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,
Number would probably be under one of Kant's
categories, "quantity".
昐ubstance (e.g., man, horse)
昋uantity (e.g., four-foot, five-foot)
昋uality (e.g., white, grammatical)
昍elation (e.g., double, half)
昉lace (e.g., in the Lyceum, in the market-place)
旸ate (e.g.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 , meekerdb wrote:
>> John Clark should get a kick out of this:
>>
>> http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
>>
>
> In computer science, we deal all the time with processes that are
> neither deterministic nor random.
>
BULLSHIT!
> An example is a nondeterministic finite auto
Hi meekerdb
I think the = sign allows a concept to be predicated, such
as 2 = 1+1 where 1+1 is the predicate. A concept
and a predicate form a proposition, and you need
a proposition to judge whether something is true or false.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/31/2012
"Forever is a lo
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
How do you explain the communicability of the
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of
theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers and
On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth
On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it
still be true that Holmes assistant is Watson?
If there are no humans, Conan Doyle would not have created the Holmes
and Watson characters, to which the use of the names refer, and the
On 31 Oct 2012, at 08:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:14:47PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/28/2012 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How do you answer the person who get the 1-7 points, and concludes
(as he *believes* in a primary material world, and in comp) that
this pro
On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:30, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, in Leibniz's metaphysics, the only active agent
is the supreme monad ...
This makes sense, with "supreme monad" = universal number.
... (the One),
I prefer to reserve the ONE for the whole arithmetical truth. The
univ
On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
The ONE is much more than the universal mind, as it is where the
universal minds compete, perhaps before eventually recognizing
themselves and reuniting, or fusing,
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> So you were not answering the question in my post, which can be
sum up: are you OK with step 3, and what about step 4?
I don't even remember what step 2 was, I found a blunder in your
proof so I did
On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Dear Cowboy,
>
> One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to explain
> make any sense to you? Without being obvious about it, I am trying to
> finely parse the difference between the logic of temporal systems and the
>
On 10/31/2012 9:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) Yes, numbers float in a sea of universal mind (the One).
2) Here's a thought. If the universe acts like a gigantic
homunculus, with the supreme monad or One as its mind,
then could there be a solipsism to our universe such that
other multiverse versi
On 10/31/2012 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can
they dream?
Yes, the universal numbers can have concept.
Dear Bruno,
Let's start
On 10/31/2012 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We need only to agree on the axioms:
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
together with some axioms on equality.
Dear Bruno,
On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to
explain make any sense to you? Without being obvious about it
Hi Everyone:
I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a discussion
regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe starting in a
simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of
Physics” definition]
1) Definition (1): Energy (E) i
On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying no to the
doctor.
It implies not saying "yes" qua computatio. It implies NOT understanding what Church
thesis is about, as to show it consistent you need the diagonalization, which us
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:25:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 , meekerdb wrote:
>
> >> John Clark should get a kick out of this:
> >>
> >> http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
> >>
> >
> > In computer science, we deal all the time with processes that are
> > neither determin
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion
according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2,
... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed bijection from N x N to N. So B(x,y) is a numbe
On 11/1/2012 1:19 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those
functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed bijectio
27 matches
Mail list logo
