Re: language, cloning and thought experiments

2009-02-24 Thread daddycaylor
I noticed someone taking my name in vain. ;) (though experiment where I, Tom, am a clone of Will Riker) The magic of thought experiments, it's amazing. I felt my measure decrease, but only after I read the thought experiment. I trust this will not derail anyone's personal identity here, but I

Re: Temporary Reality

2009-05-03 Thread daddycaylor
I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to go? But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding

Re: Temporary Reality

2009-05-05 Thread daddycaylor
On May 5, 1:27 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would result in expanding our consciousness?

Re: Temporary Reality

2009-05-06 Thread daddycaylor
On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4  daddycay...@msn.com: I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to go? But doesn't it make sense that if God were

Re: Temporary Reality

2009-05-06 Thread daddycaylor
On May 6, 3:14 pm, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the universe [by a person]. OK - the

Re: Temporary Reality

2009-05-06 Thread daddycaylor
On May 6, 12:47 pm, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Temporary Reality From: daddycay...@msn.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/4  

Re: Temporary Reality

2009-05-07 Thread daddycaylor
On May 7, 1:42 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it Hint: If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that: 1. God is a person (100% convinced) 2. There is a God (74% convinced) People here keep thinking

Re: No MWI

2009-05-14 Thread daddycaylor
On May 14, 4:45 pm, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: At the same time position 1 completely fails to explain an observer of the kind able to do 1a. I would say that position 2 fails to explain the observer too, you have to actually explain the observer to claim that a position

Re: No MWI

2009-05-14 Thread daddycaylor
On May 14, 9:47 pm, daddycay...@msn.com wrote: On May 14, 4:45 pm, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: At the same time  position 1 completely fails to explain an observer of the kind able to do 1a. I would say that position 2 fails to explain the observer too, you have to

Joining Post

2005-06-06 Thread daddycaylor
Hello everyone, I have an M.S. in Mathematics. I've done casual reading, e.g. The Loss of Certainty (Kline), The Emperor's New Mind (Penrose), The Elegant Universe (Greene),Pensees (Pascal), lots of papers online. Tom Caylor

Re: Against Fundamentalism!

2005-06-06 Thread daddycaylor
...but of courseexplanation is more fundamental than prediction. Tom Caylor-Original Message-From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:24:42 -0700Subject: Against Fundamentalism! Hal Finney writes Lee Corbin writes: But in general,

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-09 Thread Daddycaylor
I'm new to this so I haven't read about all your people's different theories. I've read quite a bit on transhumanist stuff, Aubrey DeGrey, Freeman Dyson, ... it seems people are trying anything they can imagine, and expanding into what they can't imagine, to look for immortality. Now if

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-14 Thread daddycaylor
Tom wrote: Now if continuousconsciousness is not necessarily required for immortality, then why are you waiting around for copying? Won't cloning come far sooner? What is it about copying that is better than cloning. Stathis wrote: Why do you say that continuous consciousness is not

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-14 Thread daddycaylor
Hal wrote: I actually think this is a philosphically defensible position. Why shouldone OM care about another, merely because they happen to be linked bya body? There's no a priori reason why an OM should sacrifice, it doesn'tget any benefit by doing so. But I'll tell you why we don't work this

Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...

2005-06-15 Thread daddycaylor
Hal wrote: I actually think this is a philosphically defensible position. Why should one OM care about another, merely because they happen to be linked by a body? There's no a priori reason why an OM should sacrifice, it doesn't get any benefit by doing so. But I'll tell you why we don't work

Re: another puzzzle

2005-06-16 Thread daddycaylor
Stathis wrote: You find yourself in a locked room with no windows, and no memory of how you got there What's wrong with the reasoning here? This is also in response to your explanation to me of copying etc. in your last post to "Many pasts?..." I think there is too much we don't know

Re: another puzzzle

2005-06-17 Thread Daddycaylor
Stathis wrote: ...Once the difficulty of creating an AI was overcome, it would be a trivial matter to copy the program to another machine (or as a separate process on the same machine) and give it the same inputs. OK this is weird. Every time I get an email from Stathis, I actually get

Re: another puzzzle

2005-06-17 Thread Daddycaylor
... or should I say "spooky"? Tom Caylor

Re: copy method important?

2005-06-20 Thread daddycaylor
Stathis wrote: Scouring the universe to find an exact copy of RM's favourite marble may seem a very inefficient method of duplication, but when it comes to conscious observers in search of a successor OM, the obvious but nonetheless amazing fact is that nobody needs to search or somehow bring the

Re: another puzzzle

2005-06-21 Thread daddycaylor
Stathis wrote:To summarise my position, it is this: the measure of an observer moment is relevant when a given observer is contemplating what will happen next... Now, minimising acronym use, could you explain what your understanding is of how measure changes with number of copies of an OM which

Re: copy method important?

2005-06-22 Thread daddycaylor
Stathis wrote: quote: I don't think Hal Finney was agreeing with me, I think he was pointing out how absurd my position was to lead to this conclusion! But I don't really understand your objection: are you disagreeing that your consciousness will continue as long as there is a successor OM

Re: copy method important?

2005-06-22 Thread daddycaylor
Tom wrote: quote: I'm disagreeing that your consciousness will "continue" as long as there is a successor OM somewhere. You have to consider the possibility that the instances where there is a successor OM somewhere makes up a subset of measure zero of the set needed for continued

Re: death

2005-06-22 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno Marchal writes:I will keep reading your posts hoping to make sense of it. Still I was about asking you if you were assuming the "multiverse context" or if you were hoping to extract (like me) the multiverse itself from the OMs. In which case, the current answer seems still rather hard to

Re: Dualism and the DA

2005-06-22 Thread daddycaylor
Brent Meeker: The fact that all these metaphysical problems and bizarre results are predictedby assuming *everything happens* implies to me that *everything happens* islikely false. I'm not sure what the best alternative is, but I like RolandOmnes view point that QM is a probabilistic theory and

UDA, Am I missing something?

2005-07-07 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno, After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to give you my reaction. It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your assumptions. I think you?ve even stated that before (using ?embedded? rather than ?hidden?), referring especially to comp. But I?d say that

Re: UDA, Am I missing something?

2005-07-09 Thread Daddycaylor
Bruno, After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) I'd like to giveyou my reaction. Thanks, It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your assumptions. Certainly. In a mathematical theory the theorems are always "hidden" in the axioms.As such, I appreciate your willingness to

Re: UDA, Am I missing something?

2005-07-11 Thread daddycaylor
Tom Instead of conscious brain I should have said consciousness.  The yes-doctor hypothesis in comp tells me that you are assuming the existence of consciousness.     Bruno Yes. Under the form of a minimal amount of what is called (in philosophy of mind/cognitive science) grandmother or folk

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-12 Thread daddycaylor
[SPK] Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no, Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being. ...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold. That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that results from the

Re: UDA, Am I missing something?

2005-07-12 Thread daddycaylor
Tom: I guess I'll have to ponder this more. In general I am uncomfortable with having terms like physics and psychology/consciousness defined (redefined?) later on in an argument rather than at the beginning.    Bruno: That is a little bit curious because in SANE I *exceptionally* do give

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-12 Thread daddycaylor
[SPK] Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no, Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being. ...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold. That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that results from the

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-29 Thread daddycaylor
May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin: If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as nonsensical to

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-29 Thread Daddycaylor
Tom wrote: May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin: If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-08-01 Thread daddycaylor
[Col replies---] Tom, in your very eloquent fashion you have touched upon the essence of my approach to the issue of a theory of everything. I need to make sure that everyone knows that the very eloquent words are not mine, but those of H.W.B. Joseph in the reference

Re: subjective reality

2005-08-09 Thread daddycaylor
It seems to me (oh no, subjectivity!) that believing in an objective reality is doing the same epistemic move as Bruno's belief in arithmetic realism and Godel's Platonism. Isn't belief in objective reality really by definition simply saying that there's something CAUSING ALL of our

Re: subjective reality

2005-08-16 Thread daddycaylor
John: Perhaps I'm intruding since you didn't address this to me, regarding your rhetorical question: since we have only our subjective access to out there does it make any difference if it is REALLY? like we interpret it, or in an untraceable manner: different? Didn't you practically give

Re: subjective reality

2005-08-22 Thread daddycaylor
Well, Godfrey, I just want to voice my reaction that I am disappointed that in the end you really have no new point. It seems that you are more like the Mad Hatter or Cheshire Cat. Tom [BM] So, this means you could just be *in advance* of my thesis! That would still be very interesting of

Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theory Of Metaphysics' (SCTOM)

2005-09-19 Thread daddycaylor
OK, you said All comments welcome. You asked for it. First, there's a lot to read here, so I assumed you were presenting the basic gist of your ideas in the first few paragraphs, and so I have a few comments about those paragraphs. I commend you for trying to explain values as part of the

Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theory Of Metaphysics' (SCTOM)

2005-09-19 Thread daddycaylor
Whether it's ignoring the unperceived or unperceivable, what I'm asking is: Why do you limit metaphysics, at the outset, to being for the purposes of understanding general intelligence? On the other hand, how do we know what general intelligence is if all we have is our human understanding?

Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...

2005-09-21 Thread Daddycaylor
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the

Re: Summary of seed ideas for my developing TOE - 'The Sentient Centered Theo...

2005-09-21 Thread Daddycaylor
THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside.-Emily DickinsonIn all of the history of humans' exploration of the universe, theperpetual message that keeps coming back to us from the universe isthat the

Descriptive Set Theory

2005-10-06 Thread daddycaylor
I've been looking a little into what there is on-line about descriptive set theory, a relatively new field. It seems that with the questions about cardinality and descriptions on this list, that descriptive set theory (Polish spaces being an important element) would be useful, if not essential.

Re: Neutrino shield idea

2005-10-10 Thread daddycaylor
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7050/full/436467a.html -Original Message- From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Saibal Mitra' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:34:26 -0700 Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea Name one. -Original

Re: Neutrino shield idea

2005-10-11 Thread daddycaylor
I am entertained by the discussion with John Ross, and can think of more entertaining questions for him (such as how about travelling by firing a neutrino gun at objects that you want to travel to? sorry I couldn't help it), but I believe it is off topic. Tom Caylor -Original

Re: Let There Be Something

2005-10-28 Thread daddycaylor
If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about relative absurdity and justification? Tom Caylor -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200 Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hi,

Fwd: Let There Be Something

2005-10-28 Thread daddycaylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   I guess I'll break the symmetry of relative silence on this list lately.   I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no

Re: Let There Be Something

2005-11-01 Thread daddycaylor
My phrase something from nothing was not meant to restrict my inquiry to origins, in the sense of time or causality, but can be viewed in terms of information in general. It seems that the discussion has not contradicted my initial idea that, when it comes to explaining why things are the way

Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)

2005-11-01 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno, So why is it that from the 3rd person point of view everyone dies? Also along the lines of the Let There Be Something thread, isn't it also true that a finite set of finite histories, or even a countable set of infinite histories, is of measure zero in the continuum? If this is the

Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)

2005-11-01 Thread daddycaylor
I should have said a countable set of countable histories. Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:05:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide) Bruno,    So why is it that

Re: Let There Be Something

2005-11-02 Thread daddycaylor
Hal, I disagree. How can the worm apply a probability distribution over things that he knows nothing of, such as trees, people, and evolution? Using the Wormopic Principle, when the worm proclaims that, The universe is just complex enough to produce and sustain such a worm as I, and the

Re: Let There Be Something

2005-11-02 Thread daddycaylor
I should make another point, that it seems very likely that the worm has no way of developing the in-apple technology to find out about quantum mechanics or DNA. This emphasizes the fact that we, with our quantum theories, M-theories, and loop gravity etc. could be just as far away from

Re: Let There Be Something

2005-11-07 Thread daddycaylor
Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life, etc.). It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is my point. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things out of thin air just as much as any other metaphysical theory. At each

Re: Let There Be Something

2005-11-11 Thread Daddycaylor
To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words below, and in more words in different ways in my previous posts on this thread. Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically to Nothing. To it follows that the following

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

2005-12-12 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: Le 11-déc.-05, à 11:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :    You find yourself alone in a room with a light that alternates red/green with a period of one minute. A letter in the room informs you that every other minute, 10^100 copies of you are created and run in parallel for one

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

2005-12-13 Thread daddycaylor
Stathis wrote: Tom Caylor writes:    In response to Stathis' thought experiment, to speak of an experiment being set up in a certain way is to base probabilities on an irrelevant subset of the whole, at least if the multiverse hypothesis is true. In the Plenitude, there are an additional

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

2005-12-13 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: Le 12-déc.-05, à 18:07, Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) a écrit :   ... In the Plenitude, everything washes out to zero. And Bruno, I would even say that all consistent histories wash out to zero.    I am not sure why you say this.  See below.   It's interesting that symmetry (Bruno's

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

2005-12-13 Thread daddycaylor
The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be explained in a single universe.  I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single universe.   Tom Caylor 

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

2005-12-13 Thread daddycaylor
Jesse wrote: Tom Caylor wrote:    The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets could just as easily be  explained in a single universe.     I short-changed my argument. I should've said, The reason why you don't buy lottery tickets can only be explained in a single universe.     Tom Caylor 

Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

2005-12-13 Thread daddycaylor
The white rabbit problem is a problem only for multiverse believers.  By the way, thanks for the reference to rabbits. It caused a rabbit-repellent ad to appear in the margin of the archive. It is lemon-scented (and another one is fox-scented!) and this will be more pleasant for me than

Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue

2005-12-22 Thread daddycaylor
Hi, My paper has been published and should be available on the site of Elsevier (not freely, except if your institution has a free acces on Elsevier Journals). The official reference are: Marchal B. Theoretical computer science and the natural science, Physics of Life Reviews, Vol 2/4, pp.

Does God play dice?

2006-01-06 Thread daddycaylor
Saibal Mitra wrote: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/12/2/1 Not that there aren't enough discussions going on already, I wanted to know what people think about Paul Davies' argument using Seth Lloyd's calculations, concluding that a quantum computer can never be built? I suppose

Re: choice and the quantum

2006-01-25 Thread daddycaylor
Lennart Nilsson wrote: What on earth does the following footnote mean? Are we back to consciousness where the quantumbuck stops? /LN Understanding Deutsch's Probability in a Deterministic Multiverse by Hilary Greaves Footnote 16 The following objection is sometimes raised against the

UDA and unknowability of CLOS

2006-01-25 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: Thanks Hal.  I add that your link provide a way to recover my old conversation with Joel Dobrzelewski on the list (28 June 2001), which presents the simplest version of the Universal Dovetelair Argument (UDA), i.e. the argument showing that the computationalist hypothesis (in the

Re: belief, faith, truth

2006-01-30 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: I think everyone has religious faith... Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement, which goes back to why the word theology is taboo. As it's commonly said, the two topics to stay away from in conversation are religion and politics. But, without using

Re: belief, faith, truth

2006-01-30 Thread daddycaylor
Tom wrote: what are we left with?  To make my point more plain, I will give my own answer to this question. If we abandon a belief in truth, or if we totally separate truth from our lives, then what are we left with? We are left devoid of meaning in our lives. We would end up with

Re: belief, faith, truth

2006-01-30 Thread daddycaylor
...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and die... Tom

Re: belief, faith, truth

2006-02-01 Thread Daddycaylor
Norman wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if there is no God, those that decide to have faith, and have the ability to have faith,in a benign God have gained quite a bit. They have faith in an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over evil, etc. Without

Re: belief, faith, truth

2006-02-01 Thread Daddycaylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit : I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in language between Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to "believe in". I don't think a

Fwd: belief, faith, truth

2006-02-02 Thread Daddycaylor
Brent Meeker wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno wrote: I think everyone has religious faith... Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement, which goes back to why the word "theology" is taboo. As it's commonly said, the two topics to stay away from in

Re: belief, faith, truth

2006-02-06 Thread daddycaylor
Jeanne Houston wrote: I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest, and I hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in order to enhance my own understanding. There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet you seem to

Artificial Philosophizing

2006-02-06 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: Jeanne Houston wrote: I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest, and I hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in order to enhance my own understanding. There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet you

Re: Artificial Philosophizing

2006-02-07 Thread daddycaylor
Georges wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Bruno says that: a) I am a machine. b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man Tom says that to philosophize is one aspect of humanness that is more than a machine (i.e. simply following a set of instructions). Jef and Brent say that we are machines

Re: Artificial Philosophizing

2006-02-15 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: ... and note that the coherence of taking simultaneously both a and b above is provided by the incompleteness results (Godel, ...) which can be summarized by ... no machine can grasp all aspect of machine. Bruno Thanks, Bruno, for the above and also your more lengthy response,

Re: Artificial Philosophizing

2006-02-16 Thread daddycaylor
Responses interspersed below. Le 15-févr.-06, à 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :  As Bruno said, now we really don't know what a machine is.    Bruno: Actually I was just saying that no machine can *fully* grasp *all aspect* of machine. But machines can know what machines are. Only, if a

Re: Artificial Philosophizing

2006-02-16 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno: That is why I propose simple definitions. Reasoning = provability = Bp = Beweisbar(p) cf Godel 1931. Soul = first person = provability-and-truth = Bp p = third Plotinus' hypostase. This can look as an oversimplification but the gap between truth and provability (incarnated in the corona

Re: Vimalakirti Machines

2006-03-01 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno, In this context, what are you taking to be the truth value of the empty set? In other words, how can you say that {Empty set} p = {Empty set} ? I thought that you were taking to operate on propositions, not sets. Doesn't {Empty set} p mean saying nothing in conjunction with the truth

Re: Vimalakirti Machines

2006-03-09 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno wrote: So the divine intellect of the Vimalakirti Machine will contains all proposition of the form: ~Bwhatever: more example: ~B(an asteroid will not hurt earth in 2102) ~B(an asteroid will hurt earth in 2102) ~B(1+1 = 4) ~B(1+1 ? 4) ~B(PI is rational) ~B(PI is not rational)

Re: Numbers

2006-03-16 Thread daddycaylor
Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the discussion) concept? I take them as mathematical concepts, so that speculating about isomorphisms of things like the multiverse is in itself assuming that

Re: Numbers

2006-03-16 Thread Daddycaylor
Yes, Iwas assuming that the descriptions "lose information", or generalize, just as "mammal" is a generalization, and just as Bruno's duplicationloses information. Otherwise, I would call it a re-representation of*ALL* the details of something, *as seen from a certain perspective*, into

Re: Numbers

2006-03-24 Thread daddycaylor
Of course, we can't be sure when we close ourselves in from any explanation that is meaningless. We can run but we cannot hide from the fact that we will always have to make assumptions that are without basis. Even when we close ourselves in from any explanation that is not based on what we

Re: Numbers

2006-03-28 Thread daddycaylor
There is also the issue of scientific prediction or induction, the prediction that someone who has murdered is more likely to murder again. I think this is more important that memory when it comes to the issue of the practical societal definition guilt. How can we predict that I might

Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE

2006-03-30 Thread Daddycaylor
Interesting! This reminds me of the old standby example of being able to find anysequence of digits in the digits of pi, and therefore being able to find whole digital "recordings" of "Gone With The Wind" or anything you desire, including your-whole-life-as-you-desire-it-to-be, if yousearch

Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE

2006-03-31 Thread daddycaylor
John, If I understand what you're asking: A digital recording of Gone With The Wind, say on a CD, is recorded in bits, binary digits, 1's and 0's. You can also express pi in binary, it's simply the base-2 representation of pi, all 1's and 0's, just like the movie recording. So you have an

Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE

2006-04-03 Thread daddycaylor
Can this be shown with an extension of a pre-fix/don't care bits argument? I'm just making this up on the spot, so I'm sticking my neck out. It's not rigorous, but it could go something like this: The binary (say) recording of Gond With The Wind can be viewed as one huge but finite binary

Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE

2006-04-03 Thread daddycaylor
Quentin: I don't know from your wink at the end whether you are half-serious or not. But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I can on this), I think I can correctly appeal to Peano's distinction between mathematical and linguistic paradox. The meaning of the symbols is defined at a

Re: Do prime numbers have free will?

2006-04-04 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno, To help us understand this: How is this different from saying the toss of a coin is both unpredictable and yet determined by laws? Another thought is that there are the two extremes of the meaning of law: 1) The reductionist definition that something can be predicted by the sum of

Re: Do prime numbers have free will?

2006-04-04 Thread daddycaylor
John, As I was typing that post, I thought about the fact that I was leaving out the word positive but I left it out anyway. I should have typed a prime is a positive integer having no factors other than 1 and itself. While I'm at it, I wanted to correct something else in the same post.

Re: Intensionality (was: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE)

2006-04-05 Thread daddycaylor
Another categorization of this dichotomy could be the Plato universals corresponding to Intensional definitions and the possible, vs. the Aristotle particulars corresponding to the Extensional definitions and the actual. The Intensional can also be associated with mathematical descriptions

Re: why can't we erase information?

2006-04-11 Thread daddycaylor
I'm not a physicist, so I'm asking a question. How much of this we have no information loss in this universe prinicple are we simply assuming at the outset? I know that a lot of it is unverified theory, like in the case of Stephen Hawking's black hole vs. no black hole from infinity

Re: *THE* PUZZLE (was: ascension, Smullyan, ...)

2006-06-06 Thread daddycaylor
Bruno, Taking your assumption that I am a machine or number and so I can be plugged into an equation (You = Tom or George...), I will say speaking for myself that I would like a couple of days to think about this. If we all are one person, then I will not be surprised that George feels the