I've tried posting two messages now and neither got posted. Please
Help.
The second (quoted below) was a re-wording of the first, basically,
and after the first one, I figured I hit reply to author instead of
reply in my thread:
First off, I would like to apologize for being over-reactionary in
mislabeling labeling a digression as trolling. I seem to have shot
myself in the foot with that remark.
Second, I will have more to say about specific posts later today, but
I would like to clarify what I mean by Fuzzy Logic
Le 08-mars-08, à 21:09, George Levy a écrit :
Hi Brian
As Russell said, we have been discussing this topic for at least a
decade. We all respect each other. I am sure that Bruno did not mean
harm when he made his comment.
Actually I was replying, not even to Brian. But thanks.
You
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:40PM -0800, nichomachus wrote:
I would like to see that the relationship of the computable universe
hypothesis to the MUH be clarified. Is our universe's physics
classically computable at the quantum scale? If not, how does it
follow that the macroscopic
Hi Brian
As Russell said, we have been discussing this topic for at least a
decade. We all respect each other. I am sure that Bruno did not mean
harm when he made his comment.
You bring up an interesting question: the relationship between Fuzzy
logic and the MUH and you state that Fuzzy
Le 06-mars-08, à 21:55, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:52AM -0800, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I would appreciate that the trolling of my thread stop. Please take
your interesting but not obliviously (to me) related discussion to a
different thread. Thanks.
We get Tegmark on this list occasionally. He, like you, needs to
acquaint himself more with the core concepts of THIS discussion.
In his last post to us he admitted as much.
By THIS discussion, did you mean the aspects of the connections to
Fuzzy Logic and the MUH that I am discussing in THIS
Le 05-mars-08, à 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To tackle the math of that physical bord, I use the Godel Lob
Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL).
Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory?
I am not sure we could
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:52AM -0800, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I would appreciate that the trolling of my thread stop. Please take
your interesting but not obliviously (to me) related discussion to a
different thread. Thanks.
Trolling! Bruno is not trolling. Whilst we all have some
Brian,
I can assure you that Bruno is the last on this list who would troll.
He is always very helpful and interested in serious discussion.
I suggest you look at some of his papers before accusing him of trolling.
Günther
Brian Tenneson wrote:
I would appreciate that the trolling of my
That's an appeal to authority. The discussion here has nothing to do
with my ideas, they are about Bruno's ideas, especially in Bruno's
answer to a question directed to him.
I also find it odd that Bruno suggests asking specific questions but
in the link I posted to sci.logic, there were
It's obvious now who is the troll...
Good idea to propose to return where you came from.
Quentin
Le Friday 07 March 2008 03:45:45 Brian Tenneson, vous avez écrit :
That's an appeal to authority. The discussion here has nothing to do
with my ideas, they are about Bruno's ideas, especially
on the ontic status of
paraconsistent systems.
I look forward to any replies on this extremely interesting topic.
On Mar 4, 9:15 pm, Brian Tenneson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to strike up a discussion of the MUH but my discussion
started at sci.logic and apparently, not many logicians
Le 05-mars-08, à 04:15, Brian Tenneson a écrit :
I'm trying to strike up a discussion of the MUH but my discussion
started at sci.logic and apparently, not many logicians are interested
in Physics, or something... :P
Logicians are not interested in physics, and still less in metaphysics
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To tackle the math of that physical bord, I use the Godel Lob
Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL).
Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory?
or something that could be checked experimentally?
but rarely, Tegmark does send a post. Try a specific question perhaps,
There are approximately five or six specific questions in the 6 posts
I made in the link I posted here. I'm not sure if I should cut and
paste what those questions are because they take a while to set up and
I might as
I'm trying to strike up a discussion of the MUH but my discussion
started at sci.logic and apparently, not many logicians are interested
in Physics, or something... :P
Here is a link (two, actually) to the discussion. I don't know how to
proceed, to discuss here or there. It does not matter
17 matches
Mail list logo
