On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 03:42:23PM -0800, Edgar Owen wrote:
Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the first
Google Group I'm on.
First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take quite a
while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the
I haven't noticed any particular delay between posting and the post
appearing on the forum. Even posts about backwards causality come up in a
timely fashion.
Mind you I consider myself very moderate...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:52, Edgar Owen wrote:
All,
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent
book on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of
numbers (math)
Arithmetic is not just numbers, but
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the
platform of physical sciences -
I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that
Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an
arithmetical
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:13:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2013, at 15:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:23:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Craig,
That is the very well known attempt
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:36, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Edgar Owen: thanks for a post with reason. I am sorry to be too
old to read your (any?) book so I take it from your present
communication. You wrote among others:
...Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of
reality is
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-odd-easy-feat-mind.html
Even scientists are fond of thinking of the human brain as a computer,
following sets of rules to communicate, make decisions and find a meal.
Almost all adults understand that it's the last digit—and only the last
digit —that
On 21 Dec 2013, at 19:06, Edgar Owen wrote:
Craig,
Godel's Theorem applies only to human mathematical systems.
provably assuming that humans are arithmetically sound machine (which
is a rather strong assumption).
It doesn't apply to the logico-mathematical system of reality, of
On 21 Dec 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about
the 3p view, it was never
Hi Liz, Hi Richard,
On 21 Dec 2013, at 20:43, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: In
On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable
infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of
it, in other words, can its proof be found?
If its shortest proof is
On 22 Dec 2013, at 00:42, Edgar Owen wrote:
Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the
first Google Group I'm on.
First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take
quite a while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the
moderator(s).
On 22 Dec 2013, at 01:00, Edgar Owen wrote:
Hi John,
First thanks for the complement on my post!
To address your points. Of course we do have some knowledge of
reality. We have to have to be able to function within it which we
most certainly do to varying degrees of competence. That is
On 22 Dec 2013, at 13:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-odd-easy-feat-mind.html
Even scientists are fond of thinking of the human brain as a
computer, following sets of rules to communicate, make decisions and
find a meal.
I thought that only Dreyfus
On Sunday, December 22, 2013 7:21:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:13:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2013, at 15:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, December 19, 2013
Bruno wrote:
*(JM)...Finally: I hope what you deem computational is not restricted to
a numbers-based mathematical lingo -*
It is, by definition. *((ONE definition you happen to choose - JM))*
*(JM:)...rather a sophisticational ways of arriving at conclusions by ANY
ways we may, or may not even
On 22 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, December 22, 2013 7:21:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Mathematics is not enough for the mind and experience of ... the
machines.
i agree, of course, but how is that view compatible with
computationalism?
It prevents the
That is not computability, but provability, or inductive inference,
which are indeed NOT
universal. There are as many ways to get conclusion than there exist
thinking creatures.
That is why Church thesis is truly miraculous. Limiting us on the
arithmetical reality, all
theories gives
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there
is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points
of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky
Dear Edger,
Where does the fire come from that animates the logic?
On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book
on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
Marchal is on the right
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p
view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
fifth time: how many first person
Hi John,
I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The
number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person
experience. The point here is that each entity can only experience their
own. The notion of a 3rd person experience can only consider the
Your theory comes from Von Neumann, and Chaitin, and Wolfram, does it not,
Edgar? That everything is a program or cellular automata, and in the beginning
was a program. Following along, what is this Logic comprised of (sort of like
SPK's query) is it electrons, is it virtual particles, is it
Hi Mitch,
No, not a thing, as in ...what is this Logic comprised of If it is
a thing then it could not possibly be any subset of the universe (this
particular subset of the multiverse or the total multiverse). It would have
to be the entire omniverse; all that exists. But that would not
On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of
integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words,
can
On 12/22/2013 5:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Dec 2013, at 01:00, Edgar Owen wrote:
Hi John,
First thanks for the complement on my post!
To address your points. Of course we do have some knowledge of reality. We have to have
to be able to function within it which we most certainly do
This is an ancient story that I would be embarrassed for anyone to read and
intend to leave where it is. However I could send you my latest one,
although it is unfinished... mind you so was that one. I seem to have a
problem with finishing...
On 23 December 2013 01:53, Bruno Marchal
Hi Brent,
Is there a reason why we only consider the 'standard models to apply
when we are considering foundation theory (or whatever you might denote
what we are studying)? Have you ever looked at the Tennenbaum
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
physical sciences -
I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason
is
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The first step has to be to stop population growth. That's pretty much
happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case
there too except
On 12/22/2013 7:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The first step has to be to stop population growth.
32 matches
Mail list logo
