Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:40:48PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is a false distinction. Arithmetical 'truth' is no more
fundamental or final than physical truth. Arithmetic is, after all,
only an axiomatic system. We can make up an indefinite number of
axiomatic
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:40:48PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is a false distinction. Arithmetical 'truth' is no more
fundamental or final than physical truth. Arithmetic is, after all,
only an axiomatic system. We can make up an indefinite number of
axiomatic systems whose theorems
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that Bruce
Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock computing ...
Where do you think Intel get the silicon for their chips...?
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
You wrote:
*(Brent):*
*But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics.
The two are not separable.*
*(Bruno):*
*Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the self-referentially
correct machine theory.*
*...*
The entire train of sophistication is based on 'human
On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not
On 6/12/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is bizarre that some people tarnish the effort of people working in some field, and
admits not being interested in the question. may be Bruce just confuse physics and
metaphysical physicalism.
Bruno
One might be interested in the idea that
Samiya, thank you for (now the first time) you moved out of your calm.
(I did it!). Then you concluded with the habituel scripture-loving phrase
upon which Brent had a brilliant reply
S: A person's concern for their own future should be reason enough to
urgently explore the scriptures!
Br: No,
On 6/12/2015 1:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You wrote:
/(Brent):/
/But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are
not separable*.*/
/(Bruno):/
/Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the self-referentially correct
machine theory./
/.../
/
/
The
Well, one point at least.
On 13 June 2015 at 16:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The point of responding is that if a faith is indeed the word of god, it
should have answers to all the major metaphysical and philosophical
questions that might be asked of it.
On 13 June 2015 at 16:01,
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as 'independent of us'
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as
The point of responding is that if a faith is indeed the word of god, it
should have answers to all the major metaphysical and philosophical
questions that might be asked of it.
On 13 June 2015 at 16:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All,
I do not know if I should be
Dear All,
I do not know if I should be responding to any of the posts on this thread as
we seem to just keep repeating ourselves.
I do not understand why those who have decided and declared themselves as
atheists even bother to respond to my posts. I do however wish that those who
consider
Just to put my own dim consciousness into this arena, I did inquire of a young
Pakistani, what he thought was the main motivation behind jihad. I asked if it
was the great reward of being with Allah forever, and the women, etc. This guy
corrected me and indicated, no it was not the great reward
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as 'independent of us' as those of arithmetic. Are these also to
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
You also say that 1p phenomena - in a physical theory - have to be
eliminated (as per Dennett) or elevated to something we could call
supernatural (for the sake of argument - in any case, something not
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
to keep my reply short (concentrate on Islam) Why should I study scripts
the followers of which behead, flog, stone, dismember live humans and claim
full credit for such cruelty in the afterlife?
briefly (concentrate on
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is the need to invoke a universe when we might perhaps be on an
explanation of where the appearance of the universe, and
consciousness/knowledge come from, in a testable way?
That is exactly my criticism of your theory. I
On 10 Jun 2015, at 14:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Then the computation will be in the mapping
On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non-
commutation?
For the yes-no operator in general. They are given and construct
from the quantization ([]A) in the logic Z1*. It is rather
On 11 Jun 2015, at 03:48, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au LizR wrote:
I suspect that physics is not computable is the /end/ result
of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a
/reductio/
On 11 Jun 2015, at 03:06, LizR wrote:
On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Can you explain why such interaction is not computable?
No, I was relying on
On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind.
What is not Turing emulable in the brain?
Its
On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:47, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
That is less
On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a
discussion with Liz a while back, I
On 11 Jun 2015, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/11/2015 6:58 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation
between 'machine psychology' and physics seem to be running, as
ever, into the sand over disagreements on the meaning and
significance of
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Meh! I have read that some theorists now predict that dark whatever will
cause a new contraction and that this is already occuring. Its the sort of
thing that gets mentioned in ARIXV, and physorg.
On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Why not? If it can emulate a
On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp makes physics NOT emulable by any machine a priori.
Now if physics is not emulable by any machine, how is it to be
recovered from the computations of the dovetailer?
By the FPI on all computations
On 15 Apr 2015, at 10:55, LizR wrote:
That's rather mind-boggling - GOL rather than GOD?
If GOL is God, we are all trivially God. We, the universal
interpreters (Fortran, Lisp, combinators, numbers, etc.).
Sometimes I call that God, the little God. It is one that you *can*
name,
On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:20, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015,
On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some
On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on
consciousness, are the realm of study of the
On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:44, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:
OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non-
commutation?
For the yes-no operator in general.
What quantum operator is that?
Frequency operator, a bit
On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on
consciousness, are the
On 10 Jun 2015, at 16:56, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Surely it isn't a crime to be a solipsist. What's socially
unacceptable about the belief that you are the only mind and that
all other minds are you as well?
The crime is
On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2015 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is
On 12 Jun 2015, at 08:13, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:40:48PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is a false distinction. Arithmetical 'truth' is no more
fundamental or final than physical truth. Arithmetic is, after all,
only an axiomatic system. We can make up an
On 12 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
You also say that 1p phenomena - in a physical theory - have to be
eliminated (as per Dennett) or elevated to something we could call
supernatural (for the sake of argument - in any case, something
not covered by the underlying
On 12 Jun 2015, at 07:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation
between 'machine psychology' and physics seem to be running, as
ever, into the sand over disagreements on the meaning and
significance of rather complex
On 6/12/2015 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
nor have you produced a conscious program or computer.
Here is one:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
+ for all F first order arithmetical formula:
(F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x).
That programs is as
On 6/12/2015 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You claim that physics emerges from the UD,
I claim only that IF comp is true, then physics HAVE to emerge from the UD.
But I don't think you've shown that. Comp1 doesn't imply that all possible computations
exist. That's a separate assumption
42 matches
Mail list logo
