On 09 Dec 2012, at 22:10, John Mikes wrote:
OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary
system. The last time I really studied math-rules was in 1948,
preparing for my Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget.
12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a
On 10 Dec 2012, at 07:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08
Stephen,
The article illustrates the dangers of a premature modellization of a
problem. The urge to have a mathematical model forces to narrow the thing
to be modellized and to isolate it artificially from a wider context that
is crucial for the understanding of the problem. The result is a fine
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Outside of spacetime there are no physical causes or effects,
but there are mental causes and effects. Materialism has
no way of dealing with these, but Idealism (such as with
Plato, Leibniz) does. No physical forces are involved,
at least causally, but actions can occur
Hi Bruno Marchal
Thanks for these:
1) For a numerical system (comp) the supreme monad contains universal numbers.
2) Individual numerical monads have have different intellects, and so forth.
3) your other important specifics
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a
Hi Bruno Marchal
Exzcellent.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: An additional
Hi Russell Standish
Actual introspection is subjective, not objective.
Computers as I understand them can only think objectively.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes. I'm getting a lot of flack on what was obviously a poor analogy.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
Hi Stephen P. King
I can't disagree with your comments, which are about reality.
Leibniz's metaphysics (monads have no windows) is not a carbon
copy of reality, but I intend to stick with him as long as I can.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a long time,
Hi Stephen P. King
God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad,
not the supreme monad itself.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Hi Richard Ruquist
No, the supreme monad is what God sees through and does through,
but God is behind or above the supreme monad.
Newton's God was something like that in that the universe was,
in Newton's words, God's sensorium. But Newton had no
systematic view of the universe-- no supreme
On 10 Dec 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
As I understand comp cause and effect, one simply
describes what happens in an event by completely calculating and
describing the system before (1) and after the event (2). If
everything is
known about these, nature has to have
On 10 Dec 2012, at 13:59, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Actual introspection is subjective, not objective.
Computers as I understand them can only think objectively.
But now we know better. Computers are champion in introspection, and
they have a rich subjective life. Even
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not
an opinion of God.
And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in
Leibniz: Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in
On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad,
not the supreme monad itself.
Nice!
Even closer to CTM(*):
God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads,
not any supreme monad itself.
Bruno
(*) Alias comp,
Roger Bruno,
How is consciousness related to god?
It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression.
Richard
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
God is what/who is looking through
On 12/10/2012 8:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad,
not the supreme monad itself.
Dear Roger,
This is a contradiction of the relations between monads, there
cannot be a special monad. Just as there is no 'center' on the
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good
explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But
simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities deterministic in
Richard,
On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger Bruno,
How is consciousness related to god?
It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression.
God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough
(and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology).
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Richard,
On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger Bruno,
How is consciousness related to god?
It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression.
God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a
good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a
deterministic one. But simply
On 12/10/2012 5:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a
good
explanation.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:59:20AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Actual introspection is subjective, not objective.
Computers as I understand them can only think objectively.
Two points:
1) Why do you think introspection is subjective? By contrast, I
suspect it is one
On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
From whose perspective is there a single unique result?
From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike
experimenter, send a photon (or
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the
On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
31 matches
Mail list logo
