Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

p;sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFkrIgncRPq5YjsNnBBL1uJbVLygQ> >>> first. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium article. >>> >>> He knows something about - and may

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

sg=AFQjCNFkrIgncRPq5YjsNnBBL1uJbVLygQ> >>> >>> first. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> >> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium >> article. >> >> He knows something about - and

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

t. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium article. >> >> He knows something about - and may be considered an expert in - >> computational complexity (classical and quantum), but he doesn't

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

x27;t know much > more than anyone else outside his specialty, especially - he doesn't know > much about the subject of consciousness. > > > Neither does Tononi. And Scott knows how to calculate integrated > information. > > Brent > "integrated information&

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

On 5/21/2019 11:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 3:38:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > IIT is just a materialistic fairy-tale. > But isn't Hedda's response in the symposium: IIT is a physicalistic fairy-tale ? @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

IIT is just a materialistic fairy-tale. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch > https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817 > > > A lot to read: > > > *On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817 A lot to read: *On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of consciousness* Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/ti

Symposium on axioms of consciousness

via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817 A lot to read: *On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of consciousness* Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne ] https://academic.oup.com/nc/artic

Re: Chaos makes axioms unnecessary

> On 5 Dec 2018, at 20:00, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > "How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at the > universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, the mathematics > we would need would have no axioms at all It

Re: Chaos makes axioms unnecessary

On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:54:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/5/2018 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > "How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at the > universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, t

Re: Chaos makes axioms unnecessary

On 12/5/2018 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: "How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at the universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, t*he mathematics we would need would have no axioms at all* It is only the way we look at the universe

Chaos makes axioms unnecessary

"How many axioms would be needed [to model nature]?...if we look at the universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, t*he mathematics we would need would have no axioms at all* It is only the way we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure.&qu

Re: Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

On 20 Sep 2016, at 06:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/19/2016 7:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:54:04PM +0200, smitra wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6XawDE8_U Just finished watching Norm's video, and one thing really struck me. The process of factoring num

Re: Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

ining some notion of physical numbers, you can show that the axioms of Peano will not work for those physical numbers. It is just that what PA, and Euclid, Pythagorus, Gauss, Fermat, Dedekind, Peano, etc. talk about is something which has nothing to do a priori with the sort of numbers this physic

Re: Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

On 9/19/2016 7:26 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:54:04PM +0200, smitra wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6XawDE8_U Just finished watching Norm's video, and one thing really struck me. The process of factoring numbers of the form 10^n+23 is generating vast amoun

Re: Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:54:04PM +0200, smitra wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6XawDE8_U > Just finished watching Norm's video, and one thing really struck me. The process of factoring numbers of the form 10^n+23 is generating vast amounts of complexity, as n increases. I hadn't real

Re: Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

is finite, and by defining some notion of physical numbers, you > can show that the axioms of Peano will not work for those physical > numbers. > > It is just that what PA, and Euclid, Pythagorus, Gauss, Fermat, > Dedekind, Peano, etc. talk about is something which has nothing to

Re: Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

elson immediately acknowledges. Now, this was different and not entirely uninteresting but it is just obvious that by assuming there is a physical universe, and that it is finite, and by defining some notion of physical numbers, you can show that the axioms of Peano will not work for those phy

Peano Axioms are wrong (at least in our universe)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6XawDE8_U Saibal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post

Re: Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity

es anyone know of other attempts to prove the existence of infinite sets, unrelated to Dedekind? It seems like the truth or value of axioms (of infinity or otherwise) should be judged by their fruitfulness in "ordinary" mathematical reasoning. In this sense their truth may be understoo

Fwd: Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity

Hi Folks, I apologize for crossforwarding a post, but this one is too good to not... Original Message Subject:Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:23:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Timothy Y. Chow Reply-To: tc

Re: Axioms?

xiom? John M - Original Message - From: "smitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:40 AM Subject: Axioms? > The existence of non-measurable sets is a consequence of the A

Axioms?

The existence of non-measurable sets is a consequence of the Axiom of Choice. It would therefore be interesting to know which Axioms are used by Bruno. John Mikes wrote:I believe, if a conceptual statement (a true one) is in conflict with a theory, I vote for the inadequacy of the theory. John