Hi,
For reason of sharp time scheduling (I am in a teaching period), I
will be shorter than usual.
Craig, I still agree with most of your point below, but it contradicts
the 19th century conception of mechanism, not the 20th century (post
Turing Church ...) Mechanism.
Bruno
On 26 Feb 2
On 26 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/26/2013 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the
existence of Time as Fundamental?
In his paper on comp, he seems t
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if
we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing
Universal), then we cannot derive them.
I'm not sure how you mean that?
On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of
computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and
derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or
branch of a mu
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:38, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions.
Question are never silly.
Answer are always silly.
I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now.
Yet I raised one little suspicion in
"...How did number aris
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on
this list it faded what you (really?) mean by
quasi classical physics
I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little
rando
On 27 Feb 2013, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?
It's a one-to-one relation between objects. If you invent a special
set of tokens (1, 2, 3) that everybody agrees on (i.e. a part of
l
Hi - Roger Clough
Peception -which involves the final, recognition step of epistemology- is
impossible without the
Perceiver, which might be thought of as the end entity that stops the infinite
regress implied by the
necessity of a homunculus within a homunculus within a homunculus...etc..
De
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?
The UD is not a set.
Dear Bruno,
Why are you such a literalist?Are the strings that make up the
UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra?
But doing some effort to translate what you
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> "The people who most hate smokers are ex-smokers
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the
>> difference between a audio and a video file,
>>
>
> > Absolutely false.
>
How so?
> It can tell the difference between one file format and another,
>
Well that's all I said.
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:25:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> >>when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the
>>> difference between a audio and a video file,
>>>
>>
>> > Absolutely false.
>>
>
> How so?
>
Becau
On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:29:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>>
>> >>It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define "blather"
>>> as a sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content
>>> because it means no
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume
them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive
Sorry, I am superficialin my words. "Your Comp" referred to the idea your
'biological information processors in your skull' handles when you consider
Bruno's "comp".
I missed that Asimov spot. He probably did not consider the neuronal input
on 'running' vs. acknowledging the cliff. I participated
Allow me please, one more remark:
my ID for an axiom is *a "ground-rule" derived to facilitate the acceptance
of a theory.*
I suspect the axioms were invented AFTER the theoretical considerations to
make them acceptable. They are called axioms because we cannot justify
their acceptability.
I am not
On 2/27/2013 2:35 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Allow me please, one more remark:
my ID for an axiom is */a "ground-rule" derived to facilitate the acceptance of
a theory./*
I suspect the axioms were invented AFTER the theoretical considerations to make them
acceptable.
Feynman talked about the diffe
On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?
The UD is not a set.
Dear Bruno,
Why are you such a literalist?
Don't use technical terms, in that case.
Are the strings that
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if
we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anyt
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't
John,
Allow me please, one more remark:
I allow you an infinity of remarks. But not one more :)
my ID for an axiom is a "ground-rule" derived to facilitate the
acceptance of a theory.
Hmm... That is not the standard idea. An axiom is simply an
hypothesis. Like the hypothesis that the
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra?
The UD is not a set.
Dear Bruno,
Why are you such a literalist?
Don't use technical term
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely
complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured
from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean.
Hi Bruno,
Sigma_1 logic is more powerful than Boolean alg
23 matches
Mail list logo
