.
Happy birthday
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Colin Geoffrey Hales
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
sorry about all the posts.
something weird going on.
see
Please take[EMAIL PROTECTED] off the mailing list.
Thanks. Looking for cheaper internet access? Find loads of great offers here!
is wrong with the Constitution... - The attorney (who was friendly
warned) laughed and let him pass.
*
Happy New Year!
John
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Kim,
On 20 Dec 2008, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote: Hmmm... My diagnostic is that
you are suffering
of that particular
'theory'
- in the case of this list: physical-mathematical aspects.
John M
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM, M.A. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Not being mathematically inclined, I don't feel comfortable with a
reality of numbers. But if it's the only game in town, I can
with 'MJ':
Tnanks for the reply
John
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John,
On 25 Dec 2008, at 14:46, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno et al.:
I don't feel comfortable with the view reality *OF* something. Reality
IMO is the
unfathomable existence (whatever
only the 'stuff' limited into our model, cannot include effects from 'the
rest of the world', so we cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next'
occurrence at all.
Ominscient is different. I am not.
Thanks for an interesting reading.
John M
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc
- physics).
(Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
the focus of my post.)
John M
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
assumptions (thought
/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
for a refresher.
John M
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the
influence of the rest of the world is non-local
(i.e
Bruno, sorry for taking it jokingly (ref: Steinhart):
Latest research revealed that Shakespeare's oeuvre was not written by William
Shakespeare, but by quite another man named William Shakespeare.
John
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything
'between' universes. How far is U3 from U145? Does Multiverse have a
space-system?
*
Ccness? what type? I find even Bruno's version restricted, although my
version (response to infirmation) is applicable in computing, I just figure
more planes than just Platonic (i.e. numerical? math?) objects.
John
meanings?
I wish to look further - especially on this list.
John
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/14 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Stathis,
common sense, not always applicable to math-related topics
is startled before a task
second): the transition of NO TIME into a
'time-system' - expressed in terms of physical quantization applied to the
Big Bang conditions.
I don't want to start an argument on this, I am not ready - it is a
narrative.
Have a good 2009
John Mikes
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Stephen Paul King
(Colin's mini-solipsism, the 1st person 'perceived reality' of each of us).
Have a good weekend
John M
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2009, at 13:21, Kim Jones wrote:
Bruno,
Have a wonderful day, sensei!
You too, other sensei. Have
', so the 'enumerable theories' are OK.
With such handicap in my thinking it is hard to fully follow the flow of the
(A)UDA dicussions. I try.
Best regards
John M
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Günther Greindl
guenther.grei...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
thanks for the good
Kim,
beware of your heroic offer! I read some books in both the original and
translated formats and KNOW that they are different. Not only has the
translator his 1st person understanding of WHAT to translate, the words
convey the new language's ambiguity for the reader's OWN 1st person
(at least our views about it). The ancients had is 'simplicate'-ly.
Oriental philosophy acknowledged our ignorance and blurrly built upon it.
(so do Zadeh and the 'fuzzy' scientists nowadays).
Best regards
John Mikes
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote
Günther, *please see inserted in JM: lines*
John
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com
wrote:
John,
my way to the number reality was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
two books could give you the central idea:
Lakoff and Nunez: Where does
a question: how would one note 1 billion on the planet of
centipeds with 8 fingers on all 100 feet? (Don't answer, please). (Q2: which
billion? the 1000M or the MM?)
John M
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Kim,
I told you that to grasp the seventh
Kim,
I presume you have clear ideas about what 'life' may be (to live?) and the
a-temporal distinction of 'ever'. (It is definitely not = 'a long long
time').
I paraphrase you wisdom as:
time in our opinion goes as long as we live(?) so 'after that' is not
identified.
My reasons for not
My present inserts in Italics - some parts of the posts erased for brevity
John
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
(...)
Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does
Nisheeth?
there are a dozen pdf Google hits in that 'half' name. Diverse titles,
topics, even several different personal names.
Do you have a hint WHAT to (and whom to) look at?
Are you at Georgia Tech?
JohnM
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Do it
) of the scientist - observing the fiery globe
of the universe in his ashtray sitting at the fireplace.* WE look at
copying?
*
John M
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
*Hi Brent and Stathis,*
- Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke
?
Wunderlandistically yours
John M
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/21 Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net:
Hi Stathis,
A question : Is is incorrect of me to infer that the psychological
criterion of personal identity
not like to be identified with that earlier 'John' - say: 2 year
old, or fetus, without mental experiences and capabilities. (This was the
question I re-asked a Muslim when she referred to an earlier me to get to
Heaven, instead of the sick old senile dying folks - what I asked
originally.)
John Mikes
Sorry, Stathis:
to your #1 reply: are you equating mind and soul? That would solve a lot of
problems (without making sense for many).
to your #2 reply:
artifact free choice of whatever seems 'best'. You might be yearning for
being a much 'better' person in many respects. Makes no sense.
John M
Ha Ha).
Otherwise where would the replicas come from and where would they go?
(Probably the notion comes from the backup mode of your computer and the
file backup updated every Sunday).
John M
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote
that computes.
So far I still have my questions. Sorry.
John M
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Kim, hi John, hi People,
Kim provided me with an excellent answer to my preceding post (out-of-
line though). And John told me he was impatient to see my
(complexity).
*
((you promised an explanatory post to my askings - I am in a hurry to write
down these remarks, because MAYBE after your explanations these would not
make senseG))
John M
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Mar 2009, at 18:06, Günther Greindl
(intelligence and its workings) to make an
artificial approach for its mechanisation. Maybe a better contraption is
also needed for such than our present binary embryonic - level toy.
John M
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/email
sophisticated systems, if I dare say: 'analogue'?)
- - -proposal for vocabulary - - -
John M
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Bruno,
1-OM, (by step 7, correspond to infinity (aleph_zero) of 3-OMs,
themselves embedded in bigger infinities (2
'think' creatively and profusely about millions of dollars to get
rich? I will).
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Saibal Mitra smi...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
Thanks! This is like undoing historical events. If you forget about the
fact that dinosaurs ever lived on Earth
Bruno,
I enjoyed your pretty comprehensive post!
Thanks!
John
PS one little question: have you ever been 'present' when in REM? JM
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Johnathan, Kim, Stathis
I agree with you Johnathan. Scientists learn a lot from
*disasterous*.
So I humbly ask you not to make up *MY* mind. I may have a different
creativity (G) or more simply: I amy be wrong.
Agnostically yours
John M
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 20/03/2009, at 6:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Kim
in highschool the 'eminent' pupil,
who knew everything asking: Well, George, which king in what year did what
to whom? (he answered precisely 'a case' - ha ha).
We are so smart in our partial knowledge.
Respectfully
John M
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote
domain.
John
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 23 Mar 2009, at 23:44, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
I enjoyed your pretty comprehensive post!
Thanks!
John
PS one little question: have you ever been 'present' when in REM?
I feel like I am
the ticket, the homuncula helps you back into it.
John M
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Kelly, and others,
Well, thanks for your report. Did you smoke the extract? It usually
last for 4
.
- *RELATIONS.*
I can make one statement and that looks to me unbeatable (as well as
unprovable): *We don't know, but think (feel?) we do*.
Have a good springtime
John M
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/4/2 Bruno Marchal
about so eloquently and savantly.
The bad part is: we believe in our science and do not start thinking
outside the box, so our ignorance gets more and more firm.
A fresh start? After all those millennia of 'wisdom', Nobels et al.?
John M
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Brent Meeker meeke
. I neglected a deeper search THEN.
I will look into the DeBobo oeuvre again, because I value YOUR
recommendation. Thanks.
With friendship
John Mikes
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
http://www.debonosociety.com/
What's important? Thinking is perhaps
language - maybe.
John M
PS. My version of consciousness (universal): the course of responding to
information (that is: in the above described sense). ANY. JM
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.comwrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
I think meaning ultimately must be grounded
explanations of any cultural era (and changing fast).
John M
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Apr 2009, at 18:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
The question was whether information was enough, or whether something
else is needed for consciousness. I think
Stathis,
I think Bruno is not realistic enough. Here is a better story - a solution
to understand the situation:
-
*The Financial Crisis Explained*
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin . In order to increase sales, she
decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are
it is (not what it does
or how it can be measured). And the construct(?) that includes it all.
I am also hung up with 'function' (activity) and the 'observer' (self, I)
what seems to be so natural in the nth level consequence using them.
John M
**
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath
of a
functional (operative) relation that would lend some dynamism (action?) into
the descriptional stagnancy. I still did not detect: *HOW?*
John M
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Maudlin's point is that the causal structure has no physical role, so if
you
Bruno,
who was that French poet who made puns after death?
JohnM
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 May 2009, at 19:15, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
late, let's go to sleep.
Well??? (I believe this is the most meaningful word in English)
John M
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 11 May 2009, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote:
who was that French poet who made puns after death
got as
enrichment in the epistemic cognitive inventory and call it 'truth'.
Any further learned information is stored(?) as interpreted into our own
ways. No two persons have identical knowledge, belief, or thinking.
John M
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
identification is NO democratic voting matter, if 100
so called 'experts' voice an opinion I may still represent the right one
in a single-vote different position.
Thanks for your input
John M
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/13 John Mikes jami
Let me please insert my remarks into this remarkable chain of thoughts below
(my inserts in bold)
John M
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Kelly Harmon wrote:
I think your discussing the functional aspects of consciousness. AKA,
the easy problems
concepts. I cannot 'change' the no-time into
another one.
G
John M
(PS: also waiting for a 'readable' new version of UDA). JM
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Ronald,
On 15 May 2009, at 14:25, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
I will wait for your
, not as intro- or post-
chapters. They were just applied from page 1.
So I gave up.
John M
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Abram,
On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:55, Abram Demski wrote:
I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from
here
don't feel like staring to change my ways of
thinking - anew.
Please, count me out.
John
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking at a dozen books as well and did not find those signes
explained, not in footnotes, not in appendicis
of the model, the content, the statistics and
probability will change as well. Even the causality circumstances (so
elusive in my views). *
**
*Regards*
*John*
**
**
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 18 May 2009, at 21:00, John Mikes wrote
ignorance in my
questions/remarks on what I think I sort of understood. I may be 'on the
other side'.
Best regards
John
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 May 2009, at 00:01, John Mikes wrote:
As always, thanks, Bruno for taking the time
to. (Leaving open the term 'you - conscious' as a deus ex
machina quale-addition for the replacement).
Just looking through differently colored goggles.
John Mikes
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 May 2009, at 18:25
(random?) elements come into play? (Isn't THAT also a human
idea by the darn consciousness?)
I planed to illustrate my basis and presently developed best own belief
system, but it is not of general interest and I don't want to persuade
(convert? seduce?) anybody to similar position.
Peace!
John
a snobbish
preference for certain domains in the cognitive inventory by the organizers
of the particular test. People with other background may fail.
John M
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
I looked into him about a month or so ago, after he'd posted
an expansion upo the 'possible' hoax.*
Jesse
*John M*
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
society where the
communication consisted of direct transfer of ideas.
There was NO discussion.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se wrote:
Jesse Mazer skrev:
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
From: tor...@dsv.su.se
To: everything
to be above(G) such.
(=Outside this box).
With 'immortality' I connect our thinking in time, the ordinating relation
for* this* universe and our thinking *within*, (for)'ever' is not a timely
term, so eternity may be atemporal. - Q or not.
Regards
John Mikes
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM
, (who's?) - with thanks so far
John Mikes
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Johnathan,
On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:22, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
Bruno,
I think you were off to a good start with your planned series of posts
about the seven step argument
the 'comma' part in the sets for next time.
Thanks again and my mind works in crooked ways, if you can excuse me for
that. It seems I need too much learning to catch up.
John M
--
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc
Brian,
I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
*In modern cosmology, a **multiverse is defined to be a collection of
possible physical universes*
that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many
'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I
uncertainty.
John M
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
everything
are unlimited, there is no way WE
(in our present, limited mind) could exclude uncertainty FOR 'ANY' THING.
Sets included. Occamisation of a set does not make it rigorous, just
neglects additional uncertainty.
Have a good weekend
John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
'Occam' the ultimate reductionism. *
*(I wonder if Russell will excommunicate me for that?) *
*John*
Original message:
On 04 Jul 2009, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further
explanations.
You inserted a remark after quoting from my post
Dear Bruno,
when I looked at the set-analysis it immediately popped up that {1,3} was
missing, - YET - this *fantasticG* discovery of mine did not bring me
closer to the idea what are numbers.
It seems I can win the battle and still lose the war.
John
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM, m.a. marty
indicated that ANYTHING can
form a set)
the relations of the set-partners comes into play. Not only those which WE
choose for 'interesting' to such set, but ALL OF THEM influencing the
character of that *ONE.*
*Just musing.*
**
John
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
*Please read between your lines included in bold* letters
*John
*
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jul 2009, at 00:50, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
I appreciate your grade-school teaching. We (I for one) can use it.
I still find that whatever you
that, I see an old artifax of a problem, how to save obsolescence into
advancement.
I am not ready to go into that.
John Mikes
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting
to return to this post with smarter reflections some time.
John Mikes
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/28 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Hi John
I really do not expect from you to give adequate replies to all these
questions - it would make
). And
here is my problem: who does the plotting? (Do not say: YOU are, or Iam,
that would add to the function concept the homunculus to make it from a
written format into a F U N C T I O N ).
John M
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
SOLUTIONS
OK. I give
approach and make a pars pro toto dream of it - we are wrong for sure.
Have a healthy mountain-climb in Scottland
John M
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
I note that the recent posts by Peter Jones - aka the mysterious 1Z,
and the originator
Bruno,
let me continue as 'enfent terrible':
Isn't the Church Thesis - and whatever WE suspect by it - also human
illusions?
(Watch out: the next question will concern 'numbers'!)
John M
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John,
Is not the difference
application and it may be hard to differentiate from 'life',
'awareness', etc. usally applied.
It may comply with Bruno's personal enlightnment and with Brent's
conscious experience as well. I think.
John M
PS. to Bruno's entertainment: Isac Asimov wrote a most enjoyable
(non-sci-fi) book - titled
. *
***
*[[ - I am enjoying your 'other' post where you spelled out my own
vocabulary as indeed thinking functions as relations, lately not as a static
description, but also the interchanging factor - ]]*
**
*John*
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Aug
uniform pronunciation...).
German proverb: Fremdworter sind glucksache (= foreign words are a matter
of luck). A friend added: you can NEVER know what they mean.
John
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John,
Thanks for those informations. I thought
Rex,
(I guess the unsigned text below came from you)
thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on
Conscious Experience!
John Mikes
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote
at uspto.gov. Several earlier applications are listed in the first
paragraph of the attached. These can now be down-loaded from the patent
office website. Search for tronnies.
John R. Ross
V.P. Intellectual Property
Trex Enterprises Corp.
Office No. (858) 646-5488
Fax No. (858) 646-5500
-Original
?
Just musing
John M
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/24 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
In the example of the alien brain, as has been pointed out, the
context of meaning is to be discovered only in the its own local
embodiment
of?
I did not understand your last par. (Not even the question upon which it was
written).
John
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote
Dear Bruno,
I am waiting for your explanatory post(s) and anxiously read some several
thousand pages with related topics.
Unfortunately the technical examples and discussing their solutions are not
much help.
I cannot extract the now-and-then interlaced text-explanations, even if I
find them,
on ontological grounds. I wanted to get a glimps.
Could you help?
John M
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yablo and Gallois's paper Is ontology based on a mistake is quite
relevant to
the question of Platonism, specificall whether true matehmatical
assertions
of existence
to be 'positive' to your ideas, as considered
them in more ways than just 'arithmetically based' (numbers?).
John
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
exist because
-theoreticians on
this list will include such results into 'machine-consciousness' etc.
ideas.
John M
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts
Bruno,
the more I read here on the Church thesis the less I know about it.
Is there a short description in 'non-technical' words about the 'essence'
you hold instrumental in the applications you apply?
John M
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Sep
'funny') a n d :*
If it is not part of your series *of* - what you call: - *natural numbers*,
then *YOUR* series is wrong. We need another system (if we really need it).
Your math pupil
John, the 'commonsenser'.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
' person. I scribbled a 'qualitative' idea of
thinking in 'wider' terms than the *defined* 'natural numbers' in a
worldview of a (qualitative) totality - what I pursue, but do not
understand in my sci.fic agnosticism.
I am sorry if I bored you with my remark.
John M
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:01 AM
that was outside of them.
Sorry, when it comes to speculation, I am jumpy.
I did not know about those non-natural naturals.
Have a good day
John
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
it is not very
Excellent points, Stathis.
What I would add (maybe as my Ciceronian Ceterum censeo) is the lack of a
knowable POV of P3: 'we' can only realize OUR version of understanding about
it.
The POV S1 = S2 is true only at the instantiation, because affter that both
are under non-identical influences of
! ha ha)
mind.
Have a good week
John Mikes
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/5 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Excellent points, Stathis.
What I would add (maybe as my Ciceronian Ceterum censeo) is the lack of
a
knowable POV of P3: 'we
the *bearded* males requiring a shave).
*
Q#2 is beyond me, I do not resort to a QM-pattern like Schrodinger's cat.
(Sh/H)e is either-or, not both.
John M
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi,
I am so buzy that I have not the time to give long explanations, so
Marty,
how about my weird question: and if 1 is wrong and what he 'sees' as OA is
only a replica of the OA and is WRONG? Is 'being a replica' a human
priviledge?
(Forget it!)
John M
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:04 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Bruno,
Good to see you back! I
DON'T KNOW
position.
Best regards
John Mikes
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Kim,
Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice
talk. I appreciate a lot.
She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science
(for me) arguments on the numbers-originated everything - in the
wider sense. But this is not this thread).
John Mikes
PS now - it seems - I joined the choir. JM
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Dec 2009, at 01:30, Brent Meeker wrote:
It is also
?) or on a public lecture, where questions and opposite opinions
could be expected.
Best for the hooiday season: this may be a present for Chirstmas.
On St. Nicholas Day
John Mikes
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Dec 2009, at 21:00, Rex Allen wrote
Rex, or Brent? (I am mixed up between th (-)s and the unmarked text. No
signature.
I rather paste my cpmment to the end of this posting, since it pertains to
the last par.-s.
John M
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent
Ronald:
WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on
observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the
poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in
science' - explanatory figment.
John M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7
:
I don't really understand what John works upon (when I had my 3rd patent
disclosure with the company) and I said: - work with me for another 20
years, you may catch up.
I wonder if a 'robot' can produce a noch nie dagewesen (Ger. for brand
new) unrelated idea?
I find a computer-related research
.
It outlines a view about (our and other) universes in a not-so-scientific
manner.
Good luck to it and to other views
John Mikes
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define
1 - 100 of 8028 matches
Mail list logo
