### Binary logic is insufficient

*The universe is not just black and white...* Or another way to state that is that two truth values (true and false) are insufficient to describe all propositions. I propose the following: If the universe exists and if

### Binary Logic is Insufficient

The universe is not just black and white... Or another way to state that is that two truth values (true and false) are insufficient to describe all propositions. I propose the following: If the universe exists and if for all things X and Y, the utterance X contains Y is proposition, then the

### consciousness and self-awareness

Dear Everything List, Tegmark mentioned in an article the idea of self-aware structures, SAS. He wrote that the search for such structures is ongoing, i.e., he postulated the existence of such structures without giving examples. I'm wondering if consciousness and self-awareness has been

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

Thank you for starting this discussion. I have only joined recently and have little knowledge of your research. To see it laid out in the sequence you describe should make it clear to me what it is all about. I'm particularly interested in the interaction between consciousness and

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

-awareness, a kind of abstract self-awareness devoid of sensation (or so it would appear). -Brian Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2009, at 18:54, Brian Tenneson wrote: Thank you for starting this discussion. I have only joined recently and have little knowledge of your research. To see it laid

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

I don't know if Bruno is about to answer this in messages I haven't checked yet but one can visualize the square root of 2. If you draw a square one meter by one meter, then the length of the diagonal is the square root of 2 meters. It is approximately 1.4. What's relevant to Bruno's

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

How do you know that there is no biggest number? Have you examined all the natural numbers? How do you prove that there is no biggest number? In my opinion those are excellent questions. I will attempt to answer them. The intended audience of my answer is everyone, so please forgive

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

Thank you very much. I realized I made some false statements as well. It seems likely that reliance on (not P - Q and not Q) - P being a tautology is the easiest proof of there being no largest natural number. Brent Meeker wrote: Brian Tenneson wrote: How do you know

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

This is a denial of the axiom of infinity. I think a foundational set theorist might agree that it is impossible to -construct- an infinite set from scratch which is why they use the axiom of infinity. People are free to deny axioms, of course, though the result will not be like ZFC set

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

Torgny Tholerus wrote: Brian Tenneson skrev: This is a denial of the axiom of infinity. I think a foundational set theorist might agree that it is impossible to -construct- an infinite set from scratch which is why they use the axiom of infinity. People are free to deny axioms

### Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

From my understanding of logic, there is made the distinction between objects and descriptions of objects. For example, the relation is less than is considered different from the relation symbol So what you said makes sense. Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Ronald, On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45,

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

Torgny Tholerus wrote: Brian Tenneson skrev: On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se wrote: Brian Tenneson skrev: Torgny Tholerus wrote: It is impossible to create a set where the successor of every

### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

I think that resorting to calling the biggest natural number BIGGEST, rather than specifying exactly what that number is, is a tell-tale sign that the ultrafinitist knows that any specification for BIGGEST will immediately reveal that it is not the biggest because one could always add one

### Re: Non unique Universe

If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read. ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

### Re: Non unique Universe

would really deem a a very interesting read? JohnM On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read. ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf

### Re: Non unique Universe

I'm ignorant of what you mean by mind body problem. Can you explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? Thanks. Bruno Marchal wrote: I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he

### Re: Non unique Universe

results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many intuitions discussed in this list. Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote: I'm ignorant of what you mean by mind body problem. Can you explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? Thanks. Bruno

### Re: consciousness and self-awareness

/42 Cheers, Günther Brian Tenneson wrote: Dear Everything List, Tegmark mentioned in an article the idea of self-aware structures, SAS. He wrote that the search for such structures is ongoing, i.e., he postulated the existence of such structures without giving examples. I'm

### Re: Some comments on The Mathematical Universe

I found a paper that might be of interest to those interested in Tegmark's work. http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0867 Abstract I discuss some problems related to extreme mathematical realism, focusing on a recently proposed shut-up-and-calculate approach to physics (arXiv:0704.0646

### Re: Some comments on The Mathematical Universe

Comments below. Bruno Marchal wrote: Exercise: criticize the following papers mentioned below in the light of the discovery of the universal machine and its main consequences from incompleteness to first person indeterminacy. Think of the identity thesis. To be sure Tegmark is less wrong

### Re: Dreams and Machines

Hi Brent, You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is ineffable/unknowable. So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within the unity. To become distinct from the background (the One) is what it means to be RITSIAR. Right? Brent How do

### Re: Dreams and Machines

Brent Meeker wrote: Brian Tenneson wrote: Hi Brent, You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is ineffable/unknowable. So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within the unity. To become distinct from the background (the One) is what

### Re: Dreaming On

Hi Kim, RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am real. Cheers Brian Kim Jones wrote: Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what RITSIAR means? I cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it. Sorry to be dumb, Kim On 27/07/2009, at 12:52 AM, David Nyman

### Re: The seven step series

There is an explicit formula that maps N onto Q.. I found it some years back. Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: ... 4) Key questions for the sequel, on which you can meditate: - is there a bijection between N and NxN? (NxN = the cartesian product of N with N) - is there a

### Re: Definition of universe

Assuming a 4-level hierarchy of universe as posited by Tegmark here... http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283v1 Then the universe would be an aggregate of all mathematical structures. On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I was just wondering, we are talking so much

### Does time exist?

I was wondering if you could help me flesh out an idea. It's related to the questions is reality dynamic or static, and of determinism versus non-determinism. Also another question that plagues me is What breathes dynamism into static principalities? I view our world as being on a static

### Re: numbers?

Does this mean that sets of numbers are inventions or just particular numbers are inventions? If the latter, then there must be a largest number which is, to me, counterintuitive. Numbers existed before 10,000 years ago when they were first understood by humans to some extent. There was a

### Re: numbers?

Numbers existed before people on this rock began to understand them. If not number of atoms in the universe, then the number of cells in organisms one day prior to 10,000 years ago. or anything really, that had the potential to be counted, one day prior to 10,000 years ago. If all numbers are

### Re: numbers?

2:01 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Numbers existed before people on this rock began to understand them. If not number of atoms in the universe, then the number of cells in organisms one day prior to 10,000 years ago. or anything really, that had the potential to be counted, one

### Re: numbers?

As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be possible to prove that the level 4 multiverse is accounted for by a mathematical structure.. It's a project I've been working on which assumes that the reality hypothesis implies the mathematical universe hypothesis. Bruno

### Re: numbers?

John Mikes wrote: Brian, nothing could be more remote for me than to argue 'math' (number's application and theories) with you. I thinkyou mix up* 'counting'* for the stuff that serves it. As I usually do, I looked up Google for the Peano axioms and found nothing in them that pertains to the

### Re: numbers?

John Mikes wrote: ...Rectangles are not found in nature and not are numbers; both are abstractions of things we see in nature... Pray: what things? and how are they 'abstracted into numbers? (Rectangles etc. - IMO - are artifacts made (upon/within) a system of human application). Yet

### Re: numbers?

Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark argues that reality is a mathematical structure and states that an open problem is finding a mathematical structure which is isomorphic to reality. This might or might not be clear: the mathematical structure with the property that all mathematical structures can be

I figure this is especially of interest because of the references to Tegmark's works. From a logician's standpoint, it may be of interest that I show that there is a structure U such that all structures, regardless of symbol set, can be elementarily embedded within it. From a physicist's

My apologies, I didn't mean to insert this into your thread! Sorry! On Oct 6, 8:43 am, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I figure this is especially of interest because of the references to Tegmark's works.  From a logician's standpoint, it may be of interest that I show

### A possible structure isomorphic to reality

I am starting a new thread which begins with some quotes by myself and to continue the conversation with Bruno. I figure this is especially of interest because of the references to Tegmark's works. From a logician's standpoint, it may be of interest that I show that there is a structure U

### Re: A possible structure isomorphic to reality

If they are all elementary embeddable within it, then they are all   elementary equivalent, given that the truth of first order formula are   preserved. How would all structures be elementarily equivalent? All mathematical theories would have the same theorems. So   eventually there has to

### Re: A possible structure isomorphic to reality

I'm going to try to concentrate on each issue, one per post. Let me say again that your feedback is absolutely invaluable to my work. In an earlier post you say something that implies the following: Suppose M1, M2, and M3 are mathematical structures Let denote the elementarily embedded relation

### Remarks on the form of a TOE

If there is a TOE, I would expect it to be pretty lengthy and complicated. The TOE would basically be a conjunction of all answers to all questions. But can this even be done in human terms? Wouldn't there be infinitely many questions (e.g., what is 1+1, what is 1+2, what is 1+3)? That would

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

So is it impossible that there are enough redundancies in an infinitely long statement of a TOE to make it into an equivalent, finite document? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to

### Re: A possible structure isomorphic to reality

On Dec 4, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I just said that if M1 M2, then M1 [=] M2. This means that M2 needs   higher order logical formula to be distinguished from M1. Elementary embeddings () are a too much strong notion of model   theory. It is used in context where we

### Re: A possible structure isomorphic to reality

On Dec 5, 12:02 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Dec 2010, at 18:50, Brian Tenneson wrote: That means that R (standard model of the first order theory of the reals + archimedian axiom, without the term natural number) is not elementary embeddable in R*, given

### Re: A possible structure isomorphic to reality

I'm trying to do? What I'm trying to do is one major leg of my paper: there is a superstructure to all structures. What super means could be any comparitive relation. But what relation is 'good'? On Dec 9, 8:12 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Dec 2010, at 05:12, Brian Tenneson

### Re: A possible structure isomorphic to reality

There is evidently a weaker version of the embedding concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedding#Universal_algebra_and_model_theory (No references as far as I can tell for this definition) I am looking at this definition and the flaw in my proof on page 13 and, while I will have to study it

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

Limits To Science: God, Godel, Gravity http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/limits_science_god_godel_gravity Here is my comment: An important question is whether or not a TOE will be finite in length. I am taking 'TOE' to be, as a working definition, a complete description of reality or a

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

Thank you, happy new year to you, too! On Dec 27, 8:36 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Dec 2010, at 22:51, Brian Tenneson wrote: Limits To Science: God, Godel, Gravity http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/limits_science_god_godel_g... Here is my comment

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

If a complete description of arithmetical truth is not possible, what exactly are we talking about? We, humans, have a rather good intuition of what is a true   arithmetical sentence, independently of the fact that we have to   recognize that it can be quite tricky to decide if this or

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

On Dec 31, 1:42 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Dec 2010, at 13:50, Brian Tenneson wrote: If a complete description of arithmetical truth is not possible,   what exactly are we talking about? We, humans, have a rather good intuition of what is a true arithmetical

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

How can we know that?  Reality is the totality of all that exists is a finite complete description. Well, that is my favorite definition of reality. But it is not a   theory: you don't say what exist. RA says what exist. It says that 1 exists (Ex(x = s(0)), it says that   you current

### Dovetailing

I was unaware of this. Seems like it's a crucial part of Bruno's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovetailing_%28computer_science%29 Trying to understand the concept here. Suppose there are infinitely many instructions of two programs. One way to run that program is to start putting green

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

We're talking about a mathematical theory about E. silky wrote: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: [...] One way to describe something, a real basic way to describe something, is to form an aggregate of all things that meet that description. There may

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

Have you read the whole thread? silky wrote: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: We're talking about a mathematical theory about E. What relevance does this comment have? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality. Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian Tennesontenn...@gmail.com wrote: We're talking about a mathematical theory about E. What relevance does

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

at 8:31 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality. Okay, I won't reply further, this has become irrelevant noise. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List&q

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

e is physical existence (which Tegmark puts into a -testable- theory in the paper I cited), chairs are mathematical structures which agrees with your quote. But Bruno is really the expert here. Evgenii http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/08/computable-universes.html on 02.01.2011 10:31 Bri

### Re: Remarks on the form of a TOE

Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 02.01.2011 12:07 Brian Tenneson said the following: Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... Some time ago, I have read David Chalmers, The Matrix as Metaphysics http://consc.net/papers/matrix.pdf Let me make one

### Re: Fw: the world as mathematical. was pythagoras right after all ?

What do you think of Tegmark's version of a mathematical Platoia? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/6WzRUmWbHY0J. To post to this group,

### Re: Ten top-of-my-head arguments against multiverses

, rclough wrote: Hi Brian Tenneson Tegmark has many many good ideas, but I am not a believer in multiverses, which only a strict mechanistic 19th century type can believe. Multiverses defy reason. Just off the top of head: 1) For one reason because of Occam's razor: it is a needless

### Re: Ten top-of-my-head arguments against multiverses

Why not take the categories of all categories (besides that Lawyere tried that without to much success, except rediscovering Grothendieck topoi). I'm more interested in the smallest mathematical object in which all mathematical structures are embedded but the category of all categories

### Re: Fw: the world as mathematical. was pythagoras right after all ?

Is there a physical object that exists physically which is not isomorphic to a mathematical object, having mathematical existence? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit

### Re: Fw: the world as mathematical. was pythagoras right after all ?

So is that a yes? If so, can you stipulate such a physical object? On Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:08:27 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote: On 12/30/2012 11:23 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Is there a physical object that exists physically which is not isomorphic to a mathematical object, having

### Re: free will and mathematics

It doesn't take free will to prove that every even number is divisible by 2. How to prove a statement with a universal quantifier is pretty basic. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote: *The notion of choosing isn't actually important--if a proof says

### Re: free will and mathematics

So you believe that the set of all numbers divisible by two is not the set of all even numbers? On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin aaloks...@gmail.comwrote: It is impossible to consider common properties of elements of an infinite set since, as is known from psycology, a man

### Re: free will and mathematics

What about Gabriel's Horn or the Koch Snowflake curve? They may also contradict intuition but the results are not dependent upon the axiom of choice. On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/30/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Banach and Tarski proved an

### Re: free will and mathematics

Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with free will because free will is gibberish. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to

### Re: free will and mathematics

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing

### Re: free will and mathematics

The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment

### Re: free will and mathematics

, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. But I'm not saying free

### Re: free will and mathematics

FREE means being *able *to choose *any *among a number of choices. You want freedom of will to mean an agent can choose something beyond what the given choices are? That would imply free will does not exist yet, in that event, free will is still NOT meaningless. Right now I am unconcerned with

### Re: free will and mathematics

with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. Agent might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those are a little fuzzy. Brent On 6/2/2012 10:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which

### Re: free will and mathematics

I will exercise my *insert gibberish here* by disagreeing. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time.

### Re: free will and mathematics

Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF *gibberish* does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances.

### Re: free will and mathematics

I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect

### truth

I have many questions. One is what if truth were malleable? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

### Re: truth

What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of travel to there. The basic premise is

### Re: truth

What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be 17). Not manipulate the perception of truth. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote

### Re: truth

The thread is about the possibility of an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is true. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Everythinglisters, First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions from time to

### Re: Free will: a definition

We may be overthinking things here. What's wrong with defining it as the capacity to make choices when more than one option is available? On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/1/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote: Yes - and rationality often does not

### Re: Free will: a definition

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: So free will is the ability to always get what we want, after all if we don't get what we want its because something has stopped us from doing so. Thus even God doesn't have free will because He doesn't want us to sin and

### Re: Physics and Tautology.

Isn't every (alleged) proof of something's truth just a list of things (steps) implied by the previous statement until one arrives at the final statement...a tautology? Briefly: isn't every proof just a (possibly lengthy) list of tautologies? Therefore, using that notion, calling out alleged

### Re: Free will: a definition

So you don't know what God wants. Is that what you're saying? I hope you're not for any reason obsessed with the Bible. On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: How do you know what God

### Re: God has no name

Yeah but you can't define what a set is either, so... On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Roger, On 07 Aug 2012, at 11:53, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OUR FATHER, WHICH ART IN HEAVBEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME. Luther said that to meditate of the

### Re: Words vs experience

This is already a consequence of computer science. All sound machines looking inward, or doing self-reference, cannot avoid the discovery between what they can justify with words, and what they can intuit as truth. What do justify and intuit mean? There are some machines out there that do not

### Re: Why AI is impossible

John Russell and Katharine Russell might not agree. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: Dear Russell: When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not its replicant but itself, then I will

### Re: 0s and 1s

The universe is purely subjective. Is that statement purely subjective? Maybe you meant: other than this statement, the universe is purely subjective. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email

### Re: What is thinking ?

Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark Please define the term thinking. What is thinking ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz

### Re: Re: What is thinking ?

as something abstract. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Brian Tenneson Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime. It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant. But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something

### Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

All numbers can be defined in terms of sets. The question becomes this: do sets have ontological primacy relative to mankind or are sets invented or created by mankind? On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Yes, of course, but I wanted a

### Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

are considering some other ideas of what sets are... If we are going to think of set as having ontological primacy we have to have a notion of a set that does not need a membership function. On 9/6/2012 10:28 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: All numbers can be defined in terms of sets. The question

### Re: Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

do agree that numbers are not created by man but neither are sets. On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Brian Tenneson I'm just to establish the fact that numbers are a priori and so not created by man. Given that, it doesn't matter if sets are a priori

### Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

Unicorns! The idea is just silly! The point is that properties do not occur at the whim of any one thing, never have and never will. On 9/6/2012 11:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Brian Tenneson I'm just to establish the fact that numbers are a priori and so not created by man. Given

### Re: The All

A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is sometimes inconsistent? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to

### Re: imaginary numbers in comp

We might as well just use ordered pairs of integers or rational numbers. On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:45:53 AM UTC-7, rclough wrote: Hi everything-list Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical quantitative or objective component as well as a feelings-spiritual

### Re: questions on machines, belief, awareness, and knowledge

Hi Bruno On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Brian, On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:04, Brian Tenneson wrote: Bruno, You use B as a predicate symbol for belief I think. I use for the modal unspecified box, in some context (in place of the more common

### Re: Can a computer make independent choices ?

So suppose there is a choice to be made. A or B. Is there software that enables the computer to independently choose A or B. What about a neural network of many nodes and connections that has been through many epochs to the point where its outputs perfectly *resemble*pseudorandom number

### Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

This is what they call a google bomb. Historians may think google searches represent something about the mind of humanity. So this particular google bomb might lead them to think the Fukushima reactor exploded in 2014. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

### Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

I had a question about the quote below of Edgar's. In what sense of 'compute' do you believe that something computes reality? Also, I'm wondering if Laplace's demon is relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon According to the article, we have: In 2008, David

### Would math make God obsolete ?

There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational

### Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

are a smaller set than the reals. I'd suppose that if people can figure that out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed computer brain could, too. -Gabe On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tenneson wrote: There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic

### Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

: On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:12, Brian Tenneson wrote: Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers. A Lôbian machine like ZF can do that already. I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of Godel's